Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Dance and Skating Centres

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, what consideration has been given to the establishment of (a) a national dance centre and (b) a national skating centre; and if he will make a statement. 128742]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Under the long-standing arm's-length principle for arts funding and development, it is for the Arts Council to formulate strategies for each of the various art forms, including dance. The establishment of a national skating centre is primarily a matter for the sport's governing bodies to consider.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that his mind is on sports other than dance and skating at the moment.

Mr. Allen: He is on thin ice.

Mr. Hughes: As has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, there may be some thin ice around. As the work of Government has to go on, will the Minister confirm that, given that the proposal for a national skating centre in Derby has fallen through, the Government would have no objection to the proposal being worked up for a combined dance and skating centre, neither of which we have, in the London docklands? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that hon. Members are aware that they should not pass between the hon. Member who is speaking and the Chair. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) knows much better than that.

Mr. Faulds: May I apologise immediately, Madam Speaker? Old age and the stick create strange circumstances. Do forgive me.

Mr. Sproat: I have not had a chance to look at the documents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I will certainly do so and let him know what I think.

Regional Theatre

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the chair of the Yorkshire and Humberside arts board to discuss the implications of the Arts Council's consultative paper on regional theatre. [28743]

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I plan to meet the chairmen of the regional arts boards on 28 June.

Mr. Battle: Can I tell the Minister that Leeds really is the artistic capital of the north now? We have Opera North and the Northern School of Contemporary Dance, and the West Yorkshire Playhouse, which has achieved national standards and pioneered plays that are put on nationally; its education and community policies are an example for the rest of the country. As I am sure the Minister is aware, however, the funding arrangements mean that, although the West Yorkshire Playhouse is a centre of regional excellence, it does not even get the support that national theatres are getting and as a result might well not be able to continue as such in the future. When will the funding arrangements acknowledge the work that it has done and ensure that it gets due rewards?

Mr. Dorrell: I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in paying credit to the work of the various companies in Leeds that he listed, in particular the West Yorkshire Playhouse. It is indeed a regional centre of excellence that is recognised as producing works of a national standard, which often move on from Leeds to other theatres elsewhere in the country. The only element of the success story that the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention is the fact that the West Yorkshire Playhouse is in receipt of just over £840,000 in support from Arts Council funds—a figure that has been increased by £50,000 in the present year.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Warley, East will be in order if he wants to go to his usual seat now.

Mr. Faulds: Thank you. I am obliged for your consideration, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Secretary of State accept the view of the Green Paper that, with the exception of various successful companies such as the West Yorkshire Playhouse, regional theatre is on the whole
on the brink of an irreversible spiral of decline",
and that good theatres, such as Cheltenham, Salisbury and Farnham, are
closing for months on end because they cannot afford to stay open"?
Has he read the Green Paper and does he intend to respond to what is, on any analysis, a damning criticism of the Government's 16 years of care—or lack of care—for our theatres?

Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I have read the Green Paper. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that it suggests that there is a uniform picture of decay within regional theatre. It points out that there are some real success stories in regional theatre, of which the West Yorkshire Playhouse is one and the recently revived Birmingham Repertory theatre is another. Of course, some theatres will always do better than others. It would be wrong for the Government to react to the Green Paper at this stage as it was put out by the Arts Council for discussion within the theatre world. Each regional arts board is conducting a discussion within its region and two national discussion meetings have been arranged during the process, which closes on 30 July. Once that process is over, it will be for the Arts Council to draw conclusions from the discussion process that it initiated, and I look forward to reading those conclusions.

Compulsory Competitive Games

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's policy on compulsory competitive games at schools. [28744]

Mr. Sproat: I believe that children must take part in competitive sport in schools within and beyond curriculum time. This will be a key element in the Government's sports policy statement, which will be published shortly.

Mr. Miller: Is the Minister saying that we are to get that long-awaited White Paper? Does he agree that an important element of that statement should be opportunity, not restriction? Will the Government make a genuine commitment to the opportunity to take part in sport in all schools? Does the Minister agree that the facilities available in many schools are less than adequate, especially given what is happening today down the road at Wimbledon and up the road at Lords?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I can certainly say that it is our prime intention to increase the opportunity for more children to take part in sport at school. I agree that some schools are short of facilities and I am glad to say that the national lottery will help to provide more facilities where those are for both the school and the wider community.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer to the national lottery. Is he aware that, although games facilities in schools are good, they will be even better if they are used in conjunction with the wider community? Is he aware that Central Lancaster high school in my constituency has applied for funding for a multi-purpose sports facility on its premises in a deprived area of Lancaster, but that it must raise no less than £350,000, which is 35 per cent? Could that figure be more flexible, or could assistance be given to deprived areas?

Mr. Mackinlay: Yes or no?

Mr. Sproat: The answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is yes. I did not know of the application that the school in my hon. Friend's constituency is making, but I shall draw her remarks to the chairman of the Sports Council. I assure her that the 35 per cent. is only an indicative percentage and that at this very moment the Sports Council is considering whether it could be smaller in certain cases.

Mr. Chris Smith: We know from the Prime Minister on Saturday that he is about to launch a new policy initiative on sport in schools. Given this morning's news, he may need every new initiative that he can find. Does the Minister recognise that any such announcement will be worthless unless three guarantees can be given: first, that DES circular 909 will be withdrawn, as it has led directly to the sale of 5,000 school playing fields over the past 15 years; secondly, that there will be two hours of sport each week as part of the national curriculum; and, thirdly, that the whole range of physical recreation will be available, not just a small list of competitive team games? Will he now give those basic guarantees to the House?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman must wait until the sports policy is published. He will then see what he will see.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be pleasant to hear Labour councillors make a commitment to competitive sport in schools, given that their policies have damaged competitive sport over the years? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he remains fully committed to the restoration and improvement of those sports pitches that remain, notwithstanding the loss of some of them over the years, and that the national lottery will enable their improvement so that competitive sport can be played in good conditions?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the important assurance that he seeks. Like him, I look forward to receiving support from the Opposition as well as, I am sure, Conservative Members when we publish that important statement shortly.

Greta Hall, Keswick

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the future use of Greta hall in Keswick. [28745]

Mr. Dorrell: None.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tomorrow, the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund will consider a grant application from the Lake Poets Society for purchase moneys to acquire the site of Greta hall in my constituency, which is a lakeland historic heritage site; it is the former home of Southey and Coleridge, the former haunt of Wordsworth and Shelley. Would the Minister be prepared discreetly to lend his support to that project, because it has major implications as a heritage centre and it would be especially useful to the university of the lakes when finally we get it off the ground?

Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the national heritage memorial fund is independent of Government and, as I am sure that he would expect, support—discreet or otherwise—from the Government might not be helpful to any application that the heritage fund might consider.

Historic Buildings (Damage)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received in respect of damage caused to historic buildings in the care of the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland, or otherwise regarding damage caused by the volume of visitors. [28746]

Mr. Sproat: I have received no such representations about damage caused to National Trust properties, nor about the volume of visitors, and I understand that neither has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland received such representations in respect of historic properties managed by the National Trust for Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister will recollect from his previous incarnation as Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, South the beautiful mediaeval castle of Craigievar, for which the National Trust had to remove signposts and cease to advertise—rightly, in my opinion—because of the structural problems caused by over-visitation. Is there not a general problem—or at least


the danger—of destroying that which people come to see? In those circumstances, is any thought to be given to the financing of such properties and help to those, such as the National Trust for Scotland, who manage them?

Mr. Sproat: Help for the Scottish trust is of course a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. Craigievar is a magnificent castle, and I gather that the number of visitors did cause certain of the floors and ceilings to become unsafe. That has now been put right. The National Trust for Scotland no longer promotes Craigievar and, as a result, the number of visitors in the past four years has decreased from about 33,000 to about 15,000. No doubt that experience will be taken into account by all those who manage such properties.

National Lottery

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the impact of the national lottery on good causes. [28748]

Mr. Dorrell: The national lottery is already having a major impact on sport, arts and heritage activity throughout the country. About £673 million has been raised for good causes by the lottery, and £95 million has been awarded to a total of 486 projects. I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a report giving details of the projects supported to date.

Mr. Clwyd: As there is no longer a Secretary of State for Wales, may I ask the Minister to look sympathetically at the problems of the Welsh-based cancer charity, Tenovus, which has had to finish its own lottery because it could no longer sustain it? That lottery provided 50 per cent. of its income. May I ask him to consider the possibility of giving Tenovus, and charities like it, some type of compensation for the effect that the national lottery has obviously had on its activities?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is wrong to say that there is no Secretary of State for Wales. Downing street made it clear this morning that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) is conducting the duties of the Secretary of State for Wales.
On the hon. Lady's question about Tenovus, she will know that there is different experience in different parts of the charities world since the introduction of the national lottery. For example, the takings of the UK charities lottery, which operates a scratch-card lottery alongside Instants, have increased by roughly 50 per cent. since the introduction of the Instants game, so the suggestion that the national lottery has had a uniform effect on charities funding is simply not correct.
However, the Government recognise that the national lottery has an effect on those activities which operate alongside it, and that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is working with the charities world to ensure that we properly understand the effect of the lottery on charitable funding.

Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if he is looking for examples of good causes that have already benefited from the national lottery, he need look no further than Cavendish school in my constituency, which recently received notification of a grant of well over £200,000 for an activity centre and related activities?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend quotes one example from a list of nearly 500 valuable projects where lottery money

is being used to enhance the level of provision for sports, arts and heritage activities in Britain, not to mention the support that will flow from the Charities Board and the imaginative range of projects that were listed, 10 days ago, for further assessment by the Millennium Commission.

Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are a number still of old-fashioned and moral Scots in the House, who vastly disapprove of public gambling and the appalling social consequences of such practices? Will he accept—not much of a hope with the modern Tory party—that heritage and the arts should be a direct responsibility of Government and not of those who are tempted to buy scratch cards during the week?

Mr. Dorrell: I have seen lots of unlikely scenes in the House, but that of the hon. Gentleman as an advocate for old-fashioned moral Presbyterianism is a proposition that is entirely new to me. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government should continue to accept responsibility for funding for the arts and for sport activity in Britain is not controversial, because the Government have made it entirely clear that we intend to continue to observe our obligations in that regard.
The lottery has, however, unlocked a new source of funds—on a scale which has been offered by no British Government in history—for an activity which I had always thought the hon. Gentleman considered important. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome new sources of support for an activity which he thinks, and certainly regularly says, is important.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider reapportioning the proceeds of the national lottery so that more goes to charity, which currently gets only 8p out of every pound spent, and slightly less to some of high-falutin' projects associated with culture, theatre and other minority tastes?

Mr. Dorrell: The allocation of the money available from the national lottery for good causes was, of course, the subject of debate when the legislation establishing it went through the House. It is perfectly true that it can be reassessed, but to reassess it within three months of the beginning of the distribution process is a trifle previous.

Mr. Dafis: Although I welcome the Secretary of State's undertaking to examine the position of Tenovus, we are looking for a firmer undertaking than that. Is he aware that Tenovus has now made it clear that its research programmes, including a research programme conducted in my constituency at the university of Wales, Aberystwyth, will have to be discontinued unless it is able to obtain additional funding? Is he aware that Tenovus has prepared a checklist of six possibilities for changing the way in which moneys are distributed? Will he now undertake that at least one or more of those possibilities are implemented to ensure that Tenovus can continue to conduct its important research?

Mr. Dorrell: No. I have made it clear that we shall look at the effect of the national lottery on the charitable sector as a whole. We shall not seek to assess the performance of individual charities, because they are influenced by a wide range of factors, not least the individual choice of people who give money to charities.
The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to believe—he certainly did not suggest it in his question—that the effect of the national lottery has been uniformly to undermine the effectiveness of charitable lotteries. That has not been the experience. The Government have said that we shall consider the effect of the national lottery on the charitable sector as a whole, but we certainly shall not look at its effect on individual charities, because they are affected by a wide range of factors, of which the national lottery is only one.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of the national lottery's effect on the sporting culture of the United Kingdom. [28749]

Mr. Sproat: The national lottery represents a major boost for sport. So far, 35 different sports have benefited.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the national lottery will give an enormous boost to sport in the United Kingdom because it will mean more new sports centres and sports scholarships and will encourage international athletes?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important series of points. So far, some 292 different projects around the country have benefited. When the lottery is operating to its fullest extent, we expect about an extra £320 million a year to go to sport.

Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware of the increasing worries that a gambling culture is taking hold because of the scale of the national lottery, especially its prizes? Does he agree that that seems to have gone all the way to the top and affected the current incumbent of No. 10, who took an appalling gamble, which he looks set to lose, last Thursday?

Mr. Sproat: I do not agree with the latter part of the hon. Lady's comments. As to the first part, the lottery is benefiting not only sport—to the tune, I hope, of some £320 million pounds a year—but the arts, charities, the built heritage and the millennium fund.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that this is new money that would not previously have gone towards sporting ventures? In particular, it gives an opportunity for us to provide new facilities for elite sport. We hope that the beginning of the rebuilding of our sporting excellence will be when England beat the West Indies later this afternoon.

Mr. Sproat: I hope that my hon. Friend is right in his latter prediction. As to facilities, sport has benefited so far to the tune of, I think, £45.22 million, most of which has gone to capital facilities. I look forward to seeing even that sum increased.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines he is planning to introduce for national lottery funds to be used to enhance disabled people's opportunities in sport. [28750]

Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of national lottery funded facilities being widely accessible to people with disabilities in a letter which he sent in June 1994 to the chairman of the

distributing bodies covering his directions under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. No further guidance is planned.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State probably sent that letter to the organiser of the national lottery because I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman asking when action was going to be taken? While the Government are considering funding, will they also consider matching that funding pound for pound to help local authorities assist organisations, because it is going to be an extremely costly and slow process?

Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman will know, local authorities are usually, or very often, part of a partnership that puts a substantial part of the money towards any project that is partially funded by the lottery. What the hon. Gentleman wants is already happening most of the time.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my hon. Friend heard of the apparent distress caused to some people who have won as much as £17 million or £18 million on the lottery? Does he have any plans to limit the top win to £5 million, even if that means changing the rollover programme? Would that not make more money available for disabled sportsmen and everyone else?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend raises an important point to which, I know, many people have directed their minds. However, the Government have no plans to do as he asks, for one simple reason. Experience has shown that the larger the jackpot, the more people buy tickets; the more tickets that are bought, the more money is available for the distributing bodies. The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is no.

Angling

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the number of people who participate in coarse, game and sea angling. [28751]

Mr. Sproat: According to a 1994 survey by the National Rivers Authority, some 2.3 million people participate in coarse angling in England and Wales, 1.1 million in sea angling and 850,000 in game angling.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that representatives of millions of those anglers have greatly welcomed Labour's charter for anglers? Will he do the same and consider implementing its proposals? Is he aware that, in south Wales and elsewhere, there is concern about minewater pollution poisoning rivers and affecting angling, and that in Wales that concern will be intensified now that the Welsh Office is rudderless and leaderless?

Mr. Sproat: Problems in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who is currently taking over the Secretary of State's duties in Wales.
As for Labour's paper, I read it with great interest. I thought it pretty fudgy and, in places, misleading. Anyone interested in field sports should think carefully about a party which says that it is cruel to hunt foxes but not to


shoot pheasants and which I think is fishing for votes among anglers. Such a party should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to allowing people to follow all country sports and will take the necessary action to block any moves to stop people pursuing legal sports?

Mr. Sproat: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely and completely true. Our party remains a true friend to field sports.

Mr. Pendry: Although the figures given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) are probably an underestimate, they still prove that angling is Britain's most popular participatory sport, yet the Sports Council's current level of grant to the three angling bodies is a mere £45,000. Recognising that the Government's stated aim during the passage of the National Lottery Act etc. 1993 was that they would not determine what the distributing bodies allocated for lottery grants, will the Minister urge the Sports Council to reassess its grants to sports such as angling, which are more in need of revenue money than the current capital money that is available? Angling needs are mainly in the form of education courses, especially for the young, women and the disabled and for the necessary support for our national angling teams.

Mr. Sproat: The Government remain a strong friend of angling, but it is for the Sports Council to decide how to spend its own money. I should be interested to know whether the Labour party proposes to recede from that long-established position.

National Lottery

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which museums and art galleries have benefited from grants from national lottery heritage funds. [28755]

Mr. Dorrell: I understand that 14 museums and galleries have so far benefited from lottery funds of some £2.34 million from the national heritage memorial fund. I am sure that my hon. Friend will in particular welcome the grant of £254,000 to the Buckinghamshire museum.

Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend accept the applause of many people from all party backgrounds in Aylesbury and the surrounding area for the generous grant which will help to provide funds for the Roald Dahl children's gallery in the Buckinghamshire county museum and art gallery? Does he agree that such a local cultural project, designed to provide education and entertainment, is exactly what the lottery funds are for?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Roald Dahl has particular connections with my hon. Friend's constituency, as he lived in Great Missenden. The project, which has been backed by the Buckinghamshire museum, involves the imaginative use of his characters to enhance understanding of the exhibits in the museum. Another point worth mentioning is that the grant ensures the continued use and protection of a grade II* listed building, so, from every possible point of view, it is a good illustration of the power of the national lottery.

Mr. Gunnell: Now that we have a national coal mining museum for England—as the Secretary of State will know, it is in Yorkshire—will the funds be made available for that museum to acquire collections of art and historical documents associated with the mining industry?

Mr. Dorrell: The answer is that the national heritage memorial fund will consider bids that are made to it. I cannot consider the hon. Gentleman's proposition in the abstract; it falls to the national heritage memorial fund and not to me to consider applications when they are submitted. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman should encourage the national coal mining museum, and other institutions in his constituency that may benefit from the national lottery, to submit bids to the relevant distributor body.

Dr. Spink: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, of the £9 billion that will be raised for good causes during the first licence period of the lottery, a significant amount of that money will be available to assist museums in the next seven years? Will he confirm also that, if the House had followed the policies of the Labour party, which was divided about the lottery, and the Liberals, who opposed it, that money would be denied to the museums?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to point out the national lottery's power to unlock funds that no Government could have found from other sources. Historically, neither Labour nor Conservative Governments have provided money on that scale to sport, the arts and heritage activities.
The national lottery provides us with the opportunity to invest in the museum sector, among others. For example, the national heritage memorial fund has already made grants to the Ironbridge Gorge museum, which is a major museum illustrating the birthplace of the industrial revolution. It has also made a major grant to the Manchester museum of science and industry, which is a leading science and industry museum on the site of the world's first railway station. There are already many examples of the way in which the national heritage memorial fund has used lottery money to develop the museum sector and I am sure that that will continue into the future.

Windmills

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many windmills are listed buildings; and what is their exact location. [28756]

Mr. Dorrell: Until the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest is computerised next year, it is not practicable to identify separately those windmills that are listed.

Mr. Cook: I am somewhat disappointed by that answer, especially as the number of windmills in this country may have decreased in the past four days. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the thesis that national heritage is not only a question of the past, but a question of what we leave for the future. With the accelerating rate of development of new materials and new design techniques, the windmills that are being installed now are every bit as cherishable as those that were built in the past. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to convince people that they are not simply a blot on the landscape, as some misguided press representatives out of Downing street try to persuade the electorate.

Mr. Dorrell: Individual windmills that are proposed for listing can be considered on a spot-listing basis. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there are windmills being erected now—by which he probably means wind power generators—which merit protection, I am sure that he will understand that they should be guided by the same rules that apply to every other structure: namely, we do not list many structures until they are more than 30 years old.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention, in compiling his list, to the working windmill on Meopham green in my constituency? It is not only a working windmill but it is unique in being the location at which the Meopham parish council holds its meetings. Whereas windmills use wind for good works, is that not a case of a windmill using hot air for extremely good works on behalf of the people of the parish of Meopham?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend's question brings Meopham to new prominence in the nation's affairs, and I am sure that that fact will be widely welcomed in Meopham.

National Lottery

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received about the distribution of national lottery funds to voluntary organisations which are concerned with the encouragement of social, cultural and sporting activities involving the active participation of people with disabilities. [28757]

Mr. Sproat: I have received a number of representations about the distribution of national lottery proceeds and disability issues.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that far too many theatres, cinemas, galleries, sports halls and swimming pools are utterly inaccessible to disabled people? Should not the question of accessibility loom large whenever grant applications are assessed by those in charge of such funds?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, certainly; the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Sports Council has been specifically instructed by my right hon. Friend to take disability issues, including access, very much into consideration when grants are being made.

Fine Art Collections

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to enable the national museums to expand their collections of fine art. [28760]

Mr. Sproat: It is for the trustees of individual museums to decide on acquisitions. The Government have a number of measures that help to develop the national collections. They include the funding of the national heritage memorial fund, Waverley system of export controls and important tax concessions. The national collections may also benefit from the net proceeds of the national lottery.

Mr. Carrington: Now that national lottery money seems to be used, rightly, to save Waverley-quality items

being exported, the problem in our national museums is keeping collections balanced. They must obviously include Waverley-quality items but also items of lesser quality, to show the full range of fine arts. Will my hon. Friend review the purchase money available to museums, to ensure that they are able to keep a balanced collection in future?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of balanced collections. He may be sure that the Government keep all such matters under constant review.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Scott Inquiry

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what further approaches he has received from Lord Justice Scott. [28732]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): It is the intention of the inquiry that any exchanges with individual witnesses should be confidential. That is to be respected.

Mr. Winnick: Although we are not given fuller information from the Attorney-General, is it not deplorable that that distinguished judge is being rubbished by the Government machinery, by people who accuse him of not understanding the realities of ministerial life? Is not it unfortunate that Lord Justice Scott is being caught up in the Tory civil war?

The Attorney-General: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the House is getting any misleading information from me on that topic. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read my statement to the inquiry and tried to understand a little more carefully the subject, for example, of public interest immunity certificates, there would be rather less misleading material going around generally.

Mr. McLoughlin: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the comments of Lord Justice Scott following the leaking of the report by the BBC, when Lord Justice Scott said that the BBC had demeaned its status and reputation? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if such a thing were said about members of the Government, Opposition Members would demand resignations? Should we not be looking for resignations from the BBC?

The Attorney-General: I well understand why Sir Richard Scott said what he did. The purpose of confidentiality is fairness. Deliberately to break a confidence when it is known to be likely to be unfair is demeaning to any aspect of the media.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General confirm his intention, when he announced the Scott inquiry nearly 20 months ago, that it should be conducted as speedily as possible? The report's publication is a movable feast. What is the latest publication forecast? Will the Attorney-General confirm that no ministerial considerations, including the calling of a snap election, will inhibit the judge's sole discretion as to the date of publication?
While I deprecate the publication of leaks, will the Attorney-General confirm their accuracy, as apparently indicating the judge's prima facie views, before hearing


any further submissions by criticised Ministers? Has the Attorney-General himself received part of the report, and has he responded?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, uncharacteristically, obviously did not listen to my first answer. If he did, he, as much as anybody else, should respect the confidence requested by Sir Richard Scott. The date and timing of any publication of Sir Richard Scott's report is a matter for Sir Richard.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the time within which the Director of Public Prosecutions is expected to reply substantively to letters from hon. Members. [28733]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The target which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has agreed with the Crown Prosecution Service for replies to correspondence from hon. Members is 15 working days. In 1994, that target was met in 77 per cent. of cases.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why did it take three months for the Director of Public Prosecutions to tell me that she intended to take no action on the evidence of Miss Eileen McAndrew, secretary to Ms Morgan Thomas—one of the so-called noble Lord Archer's insider dealing friends? Is the reality that this man will never be prosecuted for what we all know was criminal activity?

The Solicitor-General: I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's petulant tone. In letters which he wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions he was at pains to acknowledge her independence. Indeed, he said expressly that that was why he was writing to her rather than to anyone else. The director has considered the matter extremely carefully, independently, having in mind that the primary responsibility for prosecuting and investigating insider dealing cases lies with the DTI. She has decided, as she told the hon. Gentleman—he knows this full well—not to ask the police to carry out investigations at this stage. The decision is a matter for the director acting independently, and neither Law Officer has been involved in her decision.

War Crimes

Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made on prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991. [28734]

The Attorney-General: Further to my previous answers to the House, seven cases have been closely examined by leading counsel and junior Treasury counsel, who have recommended certain further urgent inquiries. These are in hand. Decisions will be taken as soon as all relevant matters have been fully considered.

Mr. Janner: Can the Attorney-General confirm that, as one of the Sunday newspapers alleged, a committee has been set up that will recommend appropriate decisions, and will do so before the summer recess? In any event, will he tell the House how decisions will be announced? Will he confirm that the committee's recommendations will be made before the recess so that

the House will be able to make such observations as may be proper, bearing in mind that a majority of the House is in favour of the Act but only, of course, if there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution?

The Attorney-General: The matter is one not for committees of any nature but for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who may or may not seek my consent to any prosecution. If she does, it is a matter for me. I have explained that these matters are being examined extremely carefully. Decisions will be taken as soon as all relevant aspects have been fully considered.

Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. and learned Friend said that these matters would be dealt with urgently. May I underline the need to get on with them? It was wrong that the individuals concerned escaped prosecution in the 1940s, and they should not be allowed to escape in the 1990s.

The Attorney-General: I am happy to make it clear to my hon. Friend again that these matters are being progressed with all proper speed and care. I emphasise care as well as speed. Fairness and care are essential in such matters, as they are in relation to any prosecution.

Crown Prosecution Service

Dr. Spink: To ask the Attorney-General what are the latest statistics for the number of cases brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service. [28735]

The Solicitor-General: During the year ending March 1995, cases in respect of 1,477,617 defendants were finalised by the Crown Prosecution Service. In the magistrates courts 161,429, or 11.7 per cent. of proceedings instituted, were discontinued compared with 12.5 per cent. and 13.5 per cent. for the two previous years.

Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. It confirms that the number of cases discontinued, when compared with the figures for the previous two years, has fallen. Will he welcome that trend and ensure that there is the closest possible liaison between the police and the CPS to encourage it and to build on it in future?

The Solicitor-General: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that trend. He should be aware that the consultation survey that took place on discontinuance showed that in 74 per cent. of all cases discontinued, the police agreed with that decision in 96 per cent. of those cases. In 29 per cent. of discontinued cases,the CPS had no option but to discontinue because witnesses either did not attend or refused to go to court, or, in motoring offences, defendants produced documents at court. The complaint made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that there is anger in the police service about the level of discontinuance is entirely wrong.

Mr. Hutton: But is the Solicitor-General satisfied with the growing number of cases that have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service and subsequently taken on successfully as private prosecutions? Could it be argued that in those cases the CPS has let down many victims of crime?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in speaking of a growing number of cases. I repeat that it


is not a growing number of cases. Such cases are few and far between. When the House passed the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 it was astute in leaving with citizens the right to initiate a private prosecution if they so wished. Only very occasionally does the private citizen feel obliged to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

South Africa

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is provided for sport in black South African townships. [28772]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are currently funding, in conjunction with the British Council, an initiative with the United Kingdom Sports Council to develop sports administration and coaching, and we are about to embark with Voluntary Service Overseas, on a two-year sports development pilot programme. Both projects are aimed specifically at disadvantaged communities in the townships and rural areas.

Mr. Hain: I welcome the Minister's statement. Does he agree that the Springboks' victory on Saturday was a magnificent advertisement for the new multiracial South Africa? Does he also agree that it is vital that there is investment in black township sports so that standards can be raised? In that context, will he welcome the coming tour by the Soweto cricket club, which will play at Ynysygerwyn in my constituency next Wednesday? Will he fund such tours in future so that people will be given opportunities always denied to them historically?

Mr. Baldry: I do not think that anyone reporting on South Africa 10 years ago would have dreamed that a multiracial South African rugby team would win the world cup. The presence of President Mandela at the Springboks' game on Saturday was a further sign of South Africa coming back into the world. As I said, we are supporting the development of sport in townships. We want to support the development of South Africans who have been disadvantaged as a result of apartheid.
Our programme also aims to re-establish those sporting links between the UK and South Africa and to develop sport as a means of community development and bringing youth into organised structures. I certainly welcome the visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
We are helping to finance stands for a tour by English cricket teams to townships in South Africa later this year. So a lot is happening. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has just visited South Africa and has been able to take forward much of this work.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, who is a lifelong friend of mine and with whom I had a meal a week ago, is returning to South Africa to spend such days as are left to him? No one has done more for South Africa than Trevor Huddleston. He hopes to do just the sort of work that my hon. Friend describes to bring better sporting, cultural and educational opportunities to black children. Will my hon. Friend's funding be available to Archbishop Huddleston?

Mr. Baldry: We have an aid package to South Africa of £100 million over three years, including some £60 million of bilateral aid. It is clear from my earlier answer that we are supporting worthwhile projects to help those who have been disadvantaged by apartheid fully to come back into the world. Of course, if Archbishop Trevor Huddleston comes forward with a project, we will look at it, as we look at any of the other projects, all of which we hope will be of worthwhile benefit to the people of South Africa.

Aid (Award Criteria)

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the criteria for the award of overseas aid. [28773]

Mr. Baldry: We give aid where it will be most effective in promoting sustainable economic and social development, focused on the poorest countries, particularly in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Roche: As this is the 50th anniversary of the granting of the United Nations charter, does the Minister agree that it is about time that Britain switched its aid focus to countries that really are the poorest and which need basic health care and education? Instead of that, the Minister and the Government consistently give aid to rich countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Bermuda.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady's question contains a number of misconceptions. First, nine out of 10 of the biggest recipients of our bilateral aid are among the poorest countries in Africa and Asia. Secondly, we have just had a question on South Africa, but if one followed the definition of "poorest", one would not give South Africa a penny of aid because it does not qualify as one of the poorest countries. We are about to have a question on renewable energy, but if we followed the hon. Lady's definitions of poverty, health care and education, we would not give a penny of aid to that. One must look at these matters sensibly. Our aid budget is focused on the poorest and on ensuring that they have sustainable economic development.

Mr. Lester: Anyone who had the good fortune to attend the ceremony in Westminster Hall this morning would know that Britain's convincing commitment to the United Nations has been steady from the moment that it started until now. Equally, my hon. Friend knows that those of us who travel the world and who have seen the working of the British aid programme know that the most substantial part of it goes to the poorest countries and the people within them, and that it wholly supports the Government's policy on aid.

Mr. Baldry: As my hon. Friend will know, a recent Opposition Supply day debate on overseas development was thinly attended by Opposition Members. I think that only about four or five bothered to turn up. I do not think that any hon. Member challenged a single Overseas Development Administration project as not being worth while. As hon. Members travel the world and see the ODA's work, they recognise that the projects bring real value to poor countries, helping them to achieve sustainable economic development.

Miss Lestor: I should like to follow up the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green


(Mrs. Roche) and the Minister's answer. Last week the Prime Minister received a letter from representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific states, who represent 70 of the world's poorest countries. The letter urged Britain to reconsider plans to slash its contribution to the EDF by 30 per cent. As the Foreign Secretary has praised the EDF as an effective and efficient channel for European Union aid, will the Government at the Cannes summit this week, and even as I speak, reverse their policy and respond positively to the ACP request?

Mr. Baldry: We have been over this territory before many times. As the hon. Lady knows, we are seeking to strike an appropriate balance between multilateral and bilateral aid. She may have seen press reports today stating that leading UK aid organisations such as Action Aid are already expressing concern leading up to the Cannes summit that far too much of our budget will be spent on multilateral rather than on bilateral aid. As I have said, we must strike an appropriate balance. We have a substantial aid programme of £2.2 billion, and we will strike that balance with the EDF programme.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister welcome the decision of the G7 leaders in Halifax last week that future trends in military and other unproductive spending should be taken into account by international institutions in their granting of aid? Will that become part of the Government's policy?

Mr. Baldry: It always has been. Good government has always been one of the criteria that we look at when determining aid programmes. We also look to see whether countries are engaging in excessive military spending when we are determining bilateral country programmes. That will continue to be the case.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: One of the advantages of bilateral aid is that we can properly target it. Other than for emergencies, is not the advantage of bilateral aid the fact that we can target it on projects that help people in third world countries to develop their own way of making a living? Surely British technology, particularly in agriculture, is invaluable for that purpose.

Mr. Baldry: Yes, and our bilateral aid programme has been widely praised. The 1994 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of the United Kingdom's aid programme recognised its concessionality and the way in which it focused on the poor. Britain has the fifth largest aid budget in the world and, apart from the four leading aid donors, no other country devotes so much of its budget to the poor and the poorest countries. That is why we need to ensure that we retain a substantial bilateral aid programme.

Renewable Energy

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the renewable energy projects, other than the Pergau dam, which have received funding from the Overseas Development aid programme. [28774]

Mr. Baldry: Since 1987, the ODA has directly funded 46 renewable energy projects. A list of those projects has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, but with particular attention to the Pergau dam and the likes of that, will he acknowledge that such projects are costly, first, in terms of capital cost incurred and, secondly, in terms of the voltage drop that is incurred as power is transmitted over a wide network? Does he acknowledge that it is much better to use small-scale, renewable schemes that supply power directly at the point of need in any country, whether it be from wind, water or the sun?

Mr. Baldry: In other countries, as here, different energy needs will be met in different ways. There has never been any inherent criticism of the Pergau dam project or of its inherent worth. The criticism has involved the way in which it was funded. The hon. Gentleman must be careful about this. It is not for us to seek to impose on other countries solutions to their energy problems or to other problems that they face. That has a smack of latter-day imperialism. It is for such countries to come forward with what they think are their solutions to their problems and, where we can, we will assist and support. Often that will involve mini or micro hydrowater projects such as he suggests.

Points of Order

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed today that quite a number of Tory Members of Parliament are missing, and we can only presume that they are out plotting or campaigning, or in the Jubilee Room.
I want to ask you a question regarding the constitution. In the past few days, one Minister, the Foreign Secretary, has announced that he will resign shortly, and another, the Secretary of State for Wales, has announced that he will resign today at 2 o'clock, presumably to take part in the election for the Tory party leadership. The point that I should like to raise from a constitutional angle is this: why is it necessary for the Secretary of State for Wales to resign his position as a Cabinet Minister to participate in a leadership contest, while the Prime Minister has not done the same? That should be a matter for the British people.

Madam Speaker: That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman in question; it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you have any information on a statement from the Welsh Office? Surely it is an insult that Wales is being covered by a moonlighting Cabinet Minister.

Madam Speaker: No, I have no information about any such statements being made.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have received a copy of the letter that was circulated—I understand that it went out nationally—to all hon. Members by the north-eastern region of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. It says:
DSS headquarters has set a pilot project for a central correspondence section. The idea of this section is to move away from tailored replies to MPs' inquiries to Ministers on behalf of constituents and to offer standard replies.
Those would be on individual cases. It goes on:
These standard replies are withdrawn from a stock of paragraphs, then pasted together to give a general reply to the inquiry. This will inevitably lead to bland replies and dissatisfaction amongst constituents who receive them. We would ask you not to accept bland and meaningless replies but to press for complete tailored replies which fully address the concerns of your constituents"—
my constituents, and, Madam Speaker, your constituents.
I have not had a chance to discuss this with my hon. Friends, but I am sure that they are all concerned, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will be—we have no monopoly on concern over these matters. I wondered whether you might consider that letter, which has implications for us all, and, in the great number of forums in which you are able to discuss such matters, raise the letter with the appropriate authorities? Clearly, such a policy would be damaging for our constituents.

Madam Speaker: I know full well that hon. Members on both sides of the House demand the fullest possible

information generally, as well as information on an individual basis relating to their constituents—as I do myself. I have not seen the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I shall make it my business to see the letter and make inquiries about it.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I have been in this place for more than 16 years, and I have never known anything like what is happening today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, it is significant that three hon. Members—for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)—are not here. They have something in common.
We have a Prime Minister whose mind is somewhere else, a Foreign Secretary who is about to retire, and a caretaker Secretary of State for Wales. Is it not the truth that they are all caretakers now? As they cannot turn up, and as their minds and hearts are elsewhere, why not adjourn the House until 4 July, and then we could all come back? Even better, instead of discredited Conservative Members choosing a Prime Minister, why not let the 30 million voters in the country decide?

Madam Speaker: A number of people, including myself, would disapprove of any adjournment, and certainly an adjournment until 4 July.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you been approached by any Ministers, other than the one who has resigned today, saying that they wish to make a statement to the House in the coming week?

Madam Speaker: I have had no such requests.

Mr. John Gunnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Knowing, as we all do, how much we are indebted to Hansard for recording both what we have to say and our votes on key issues, would it be in order for you to extend the role of Hansard to record the forthcoming votes of Conservative Members, which would be for the enlightenment of the whole country?

Madam Speaker: That is an ingenious idea, but I have no authority to do anything of the sort.

Mr. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We have heard that the Secretary of State for Wales is resigning from the Cabinet. There is a convention that Ministers who resign can make a personal statement to the House. Is that something to which the Secretary of State for Wales would be entitled?

Madam Speaker: A resignation statement, not a personal statement, is sometimes made—although not always. If the former Secretary of State for Wales wishes to make a resignation statement, he must apply to me, and I shall certainly consider his request.

Orders of the Day — Health Authorities Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

PREPARATIONS FOR REORGANISATION OF AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 30, leave out ("prescribed")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Sackville: I am delighted to turn the attention of the nation to the vital business of Government and, in particular, these important technical amendments to the Bill.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 30, leave out line 33 and insert—
("103.—(1) The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 29")

Mr. Sackville: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 4.

Mr. Sackville: There are a number of national health service staff whose contracts of employment are presently held by regional health authorities because they are undertaking training programmes that require them to move regularly between different NHS employers. While the contracts are held by RHAs, the staff can move between employers without losing any of the employment rights that depend upon staff serving a period of continuous employment—for example, protection against unfair dismissal and the right to return to work after maternity leave.
It is clear that, when RHAs no longer exist, new arrangements must be made for such staff. Junior doctors and dentists in the registrar and senior registrar grades are the largest groups affected; others include clinical psychology trainees, finance and general management trainees, and some pharmacy and scientist training grades. Staff in the training grades must move regularly between employers in order to gain a high standard of professional training, so we need to ensure that there are no obstacles that would discourage them from so moving.
That is what the amendments are designed to achieve. The provisions in schedule 2 ensure protection of continuity for staff who move from RHAs to other NHS

bodies next April. Without the amendments, however, continuity of employment of trainees would be broken on any subsequent moves between NHS employers.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary recognise that many employees within the NHS who support the proposals are concerned that most NHS employees at local trust level are being taken on as temporary employees? Why are the Government not seeking to give those people permanent jobs? Should not the Under-Secretary be moving a further amendment?

Mr. Sackville: The amendment deals with protections which now exist and how those apply to regional health authorities. We want the House to agree with the Lords that those protections should continue to exist. The detailed arrangements for devolving contracts to employers are still a matter for discussion with the various professional bodies representing staff. I believe that the amendments offer NHS staff significant reassurances.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: We all took note of the Under-Secretary's remark that the business of Government must continue, and he has been sent here to ensure that it does. I am not sure what that implies for his future, but I wish him luck; he will no doubt make a further announcement later.
The matter before us today is slightly at variance with comments which have been made to the House, particularly in Committee. The issue under consideration is the contracts of NHS employees, the largest single group of whom are junior doctors. The question of which body should hold the contracts of junior doctors exercised our minds in Committee.
I asked the Under-Secretary on 26 January where the contracts would be held, and he replied:
Junior doctors' contracts and vocational training are under discussion with the relevant professional organisations. We must reach a conclusion about the role of the regional offices or district health authorities in those matters. However, those issues must be discussed with the profession."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 January 1995; c. 58.]
Implicit in what the Under-Secretary said is that there would be a role for either the regional office of the Department of Health or the newly created district health authority.
As there was some uncertainty as to what that meant in practice, I intervened on 31 January on the Minister for Health to ask:
Is it the Government's intention to hold the contracts for junior doctors at regional level?
The Minister replied:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case; it makes sense in current circumstances to do so. As he asked me that strategic question, I can state that it would not be necessary for the type of organisations suggested in amendment to perform that function."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 31 January 1995; c. 84.]
In Committee, Labour tabled a probing amendment dealing with who was to hold the contracts for, among others, junior doctors.
What the Under-Secretary is telling us is at variance with those assurances in Committee. He correctly says that the employment contracts of certain groups of NHS staff are held by regional health authorities, which, the House will recall, are to be abolished by this Bill, so the contracts must be held elsewhere. The advantage of having contracts held by regional health authorities is that


the employees could occupy successive posts with different NHS employers as part of a structured training programme, without breaking the continuity of their employment for the purposes of employment protection legislation.
I have no quarrel with the Minister's stated objective of ensuring that there is no discontinuity in employment. The largest group of employees involved are the medical and dental registrars—the backbone of secondary services in the NHS—and senior registrars, who move around a number of hospitals as part of their specialist training. A number of other groups—most notably the clinical psychology trainees and general management and finance trainees—are also affected.
The Lords amendments will make provision for those groups of staff to enjoy continuity of employment even if they are employed by trust bodies or by a consortium of trust bodies. Many Labour Members feared that that was the Government's intention, and probed them on the matter in Committee. We were assured that this was not the Government's intention, yet we are now dealing with Lords amendments that suggest that it is.
3.45 pm
The British Medical Association, as one would expect, is concerned about the amendments. The association does not think that it is right that the contracts of junior doctors should be held at trust level. It believes, as we believe, that the training of junior doctors requires strategic administration at regional level, and that devolution to individual trusts will make it far more difficult to achieve the right number of trained doctors and to get a broad mix of specialty rotation for each doctor under training.
We believe—we explored the matter at some length in Committee—that the new arrangements will increase bureaucracy, although it is a stated purpose of the Bill that bureaucracy will be reduced, not increased. Each consortium of trusts or individual trusts will have to draw up their own contracts for their own junior doctors.
The Government's proposals will bring about distortions in their internal market. Doctors in training are a national, or at least a regional, resource, and their contracts should be at higher than trust level. Having the contracts above trust level would prevent local problems in the purchaser-provider relationship—problems that we believe will distort the requirement for trained doctors.
In addition, it is not clear to me how the arrangements for training rotation will work in practice. The Government are committed to achieving the Calman report's objective of improving the quality of training. Many junior doctors are appointed to posts that are rotational within the duration of the contract. They progress through a series of posts and through a number of hospitals in the region to maximise their experience of different aspects of their speciality. A typical rotation post lasts for six months.
I am quarrelling not with the arrangements, but with the fiendishly difficult practice of making the arrangements work when the contract of employment is held by an individual trust whereas the employment is carried out across a range of different trusts. Presumably the juniors will have to apply for different posts at

six-month intervals. There is no guarantee that they can obtain particular posts in aspects in which they require experience.
The Government have not thought the matter through properly. If their idea is that there should be a consortium of trusts holding the contracts, there will inevitably be an increase in bureaucracy, because there will be a need for professional personnel managers and professional training staff to monitor the training programme and to hold the contracts of the individual doctors. It is more economically efficient to do that at regional level, as is the case in England at present.
I am worried that the proposed structure will not protect the educational content of the posts. I have little confidence that the educational part of the junior doctors' training will be retained if they are trust employees. The trusts have to respond to day-to-day commercial pressures, and they are bound to put those commercial pressures above the broader interests of training the doctors.
There is also a threat to the national pay and conditions of staff who will be covered by the arrangements. If their contracts are held locally, the terms and conditions, although this has not yet been stated by the Government, stand to be negotiated locally and not nationally. It is perfectly obvious that the arrangements could be the thin end of the wedge. At best, they facilitate the break-up of the national pay bargaining structure. That cannot be right.
I took careful note of what the Minister of State said about a core of national terms of service for juniors. He said that they would serve
as a reference point for their employers to establish fair and locally workable contractual arrangements to provide a degree of flexibility".
The BMA is wholly opposed to local pay for doctors—so is the parliamentary Labour party. Amendments that look innocuous are nothing of the kind, but specifically reverse assurances that hon. Members were given, and which they believed in good faith, in Committee. I therefore urge the House to vote the amendments down.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The occupation of the Government Back Benches reminds one irresistibly of the story of Sleeping Beauty. One wonders which prince will awaken the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) on Thursday, although I must confess that she has competition from Old Father Time behind me.
The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), has raised an important issue, because it relates to the training of doctors. I speak as a lay member of the General Medical Council, which has an important responsibility for scrutinising and approving the training of junior doctors, and for their registration after they have been trained.
I hope that the Minister will agree that he owes the House a little more explanation as to how the Government intend to ensure that doctors in training posts are not treated merely as a spare pair of hands. The Calman report made it clear that the Government's objective is to improve the quality of doctors' training. Simply putting doctors in the employment of trusts, where their work may well be demand-led from crisis to crisis, will not be sufficient training, and is unlikely to gain the approval of the postgraduate deans and others who approve the rotational training of junior doctors.
In anaesthetics, for example, a doctor may have a three-year contract, moving to a different hospital every six months to secure his or her full training. Without being told more by the Minister, it is difficult to understand how the Government intend to ensure that that training is harmonised under the regulations proposed following the amendments. There is little confidence that the educational element will be protected if trusts are the employers, when immediate needs could plainly dominate the working week.
The British Medical Association has proposed the establishment of a small special health authority to oversee the training of junior doctors and other doctors undergoing training for one reason or another. The establishment of such health authorities on a regional basis for that purpose would ensure a clear line of accountability, a clearly identifiable purchaser of medical—[Interruption.] The hon. Member should not interrupt when she has not been listening to most of the debate. Would she like me to give way?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. and learned Gentleman was so boring. I was listening when the intelligent Members were speaking,

Mr. Carlile: I can assure the hon. Lady that she drifted away during the Minister's speech and consolidated her repose well into the beginning of mine, but I am very glad that she is now listening sufficiently intently to become ever so slightly incandescent.
The BMA's proposals for small special health authorities based regionally would be a useful innovation. They would assume responsibility for all doctors in training within the region, which would establish a clear line of accountability and introduce market principles, in that such an authority would be clearly identifiable as the purchaser of medical education and training within the current structure of NHS management.
Whether or not that is the right solution, we have not yet heard from the Minister how that important integrity of rotational training is to be maintained. I hope that he will be able to give the House a better explanation in a moment.

Mr. Sackville: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind the House that the amendments are about continuity of employment and protection of employment rights under new employers, following the proposed end of regional health authorities.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) should not make too much of a slip of the tongue in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, because my hon. Friend has made it clear since, in a speech to the annual conference of the British Association of Medical Managers, that junior doctors' contracts will be held by NHS trusts, with deans of postgraduate medicine overseeing junior doctors' educational needs.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am the last person in the world to make too much of a slip of the tongue, but I remind the Under-Secretary what was said in Committee. I asked the Minister:
Is it the Government's intention to hold the contracts for junior doctors at regional level?

The Minister now says that the Government's response is, "No, they will be held at trust level." That is a perfectly straight answer to a straight question. He must accept that the answer that I was given at the time was not a slip of the tongue. It was:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case; it makes sense in current circumstances to do so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 31 January 1995; c. 84.]
—that is, to hold them at regional level. The Minister cannot characterise that as a slip of the tongue.

Mr. Sackville: I am sorry that the Committee was momentarily misled. On examination, it is clear that it would be difficult for the regions to hold all those contracts of employment without asking all doctors to become civil servants, which we would both agree would be unwise.
On the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I see no reason why postgraduate deans and trusts should not co-operate to ensure a proper rotation of doctors. After all, many of those doctors will end up working for trusts. There is no reason to suppose that trusts would wish to require postgraduate deans to short-change junior doctors on their training. Given that provision in the health service is now taken care of by trusts, it seems eminently natural that trusts should employ junior doctors.

Mr. Alex Carlile: What the Minister says makes perfect sense, but if a postgraduate dean took the view that the way in which a junior doctor was employed was not consistent with good training, how would such a dispute be resolved under the arrangements that the Government have in mind? So far, we have not heard the answer.

Mr. Sackville: We must allow that all those involved will, with good will, come to arrangements that are in the best interests of medical training. I have no reason to suppose that those arrangements would be unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East talked about consortia of trusts. A number of combinations are possible, but the most likely would be lead trusts for particular specialties, which would hold those contracts in each region; so people in those trusts would deal with postgraduate deans on matters concerning postgraduate education.
People outside this House would be surprised to hear us suggest that junior doctors should be employed by anyone other than hospitals. To set up some alternative procedure—a special health authority—would be a bureaucratic and expensive option, which is exactly what the Bill seeks to put behind us.
May I return to the nub of the matter? The amendments seek to protect the employment rights of junior doctors after the end of regions. For that reason, I commend them to the House.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 170.

Division No. 175]
[3.58 pm


Ayes


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ancram, Michael


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amess, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)






Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hague, William


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Batiste, Spencer
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Booth, Hartley
Hawkins, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Heald, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hendry, Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Bright, Sir Graham
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Horam, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Butler, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Bernard


Carrington, Matthew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Congdon, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knox, Sir David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Couchman, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Cran, James
Legg, Barry


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Leigh, Edward


Day, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dicks, Terry
Lidington, David


Dover, Den
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan, Alan
Luff, Peter


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Elletson, Harold
MacKay, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evennett, David
Malone, Gerald


Faber, David
Mans, Keith


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Merchant, Piers


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Sir Roger


Gallie, Phil
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, Sir George
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Garnier, Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Norris, Steve


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Page, Richard





Patnick, Sir Irvine
Stern, Michael


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Allan


Pickles, Eric
Streeter, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Sumberg, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Sykes, John


Richards, Rod
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thomason, Roy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Sackville, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Sir Michael
Watts John


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Spencer, Sir Derek
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wood, Timothy


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sproat, Iain
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Michael Bates and


Stephen, Michael
Dr. Liam Fox.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Denham, John


Austin-Walker, John
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bennett, Andrew F
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Etherington, Bill


Berry, Roger
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Gapes, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
George, Bruce


Chidgey, David
Gerrard, Neil


Church, Judith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gunnell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hain, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hanson, David


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harvey, Nick


Corston, Jean
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Heppell, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Dafis,Cynog
Hoey, Kate


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)






Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William (Nomanton)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Hara, Edward


Hoyle, Doug
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L


Hutton,John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfernline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Maddock, Diana
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mandelson, Peter
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Touhig, Don


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Milburn, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Joe Benton and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 agreed to.

Jobseekers Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

THE CONTRIBUTION-BASED CONDITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 17, leave out from ("not") to end of line and insert ("entitled to income support.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 50 and 51.

Mr. Evans: The amendments are intended to prevent the making of duplicate awards of the jobseeker's allowance and income support to the same claimant or duplicate awards of benefit to members of the same family. The original wording of the Bill does not achieve that, as it makes the criterion the fact that benefit is "payable". That might, on the face of it, sound sufficient, but there are a small number of cases in which the sum awarded is less than 10p—the de minimis figure—and the benefit is not payable.
To clarify the position, the amendments lay down the criterion of "entitlement", but I should stress that they in no way remove the choice open to the claimant and family to choose between the benefits and claim the one that they prefer. If a claimant wishes to switch between income support and the jobseeker's allowance, he need only terminate one claim before the next is made. The purpose of the amendments is to make that clear and less confusing.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I am grateful for the Minister's brief explanation of these technical amendments—I accept that they are technical. It is apposite that, today of all days, we are discussing the jobseeker's allowance because so many Conservative Members will shortly be involved in exactly that process, which is probably why there are so few in the Chamber—they are racing around seeking help for their causes.
This is the first opportunity since the Bill returned from another place for the Government to tell us precisely why they have delayed its introduction by six months from April 1996 to October 1996. As we know, they did not have the courtesy to make a proper statement to the House, despite many attempts by me and my colleagues, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) who raised points of order, to explain why, as a result of deliberations in another place, the introduction of the Bill has been put back six months.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing not with the whole Bill but with specific Lords amendments. He must confine his remarks to them.

Mr. Bradley: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point is that, during deliberation on these


amendments in another place, the Government decided to delay the introduction of the Bill. I think that it is relevant in our debate on the first group of amendments to seek an explanation of why the Bill has been delayed for six months—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not convinced me. If he wishes to pursue that point, he must find another way to do so. He cannot pursue the matter on this group of amendments.

Mr. Bradley: Again I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the amendments change many things with which Benefits Agency staff will have to deal. The result is that the Bill's introduction has been delayed by six months. We need to know precisely why. We did not know about the chaos in which the Government now find themselves.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My understanding is that the Labour party is opposed to the Bill. If that is the case, why are they objecting to a six-month delay in its introduction?

Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall explain the Labour party's exact position. He is right to say that any delay in this nasty piece of legislation is welcome, but we do not want legislation that we have tried to improve to fall into the same chaos as other recent Acts. The Child Support Act 1991 and the introduction of the disabled living allowance are examples of the chaos in benefit delivery that can result from inadequate consideration.
We obviously welcome any delay that will result in the Bill's smooth introduction, even though we do not approve of its provisions. We want to ensure that Employment Service staff are fully trained and understand the implications of the amendments that are before us today. It is crucial that the computer systems—which I understand are the root cause of the problem—are running effectively.
The amendments are part of what the Government and the other place recognise as a package of carrot-and-stick measures for the unemployed. The carrots, as the Government describe them, are the national insurance holiday for employers, the run-on of housing benefit and council tax benefit, and the Government's perception of the jobseekers agreement. However, the stick part of the package has not been delayed for six months; only the carrot parts have been delayed.
I understand that the crucial cut in the contributory benefit from 12 to six months, the introduction of means-tested benefits at six months, and the reduction in benefit for people under 25 will go ahead in April 1996. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point. We must know how the delay in introducing the benefit will be dealt with in practice to ensure that people who become unemployed either side of April 1996—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): What does any of that have to do with the amendments under discussion?

Mr. Bradley: It is extraordinary that the Minister does not recognise that the key amendments made in another

place, which affect the whole Bill, will also have consequences when the cuts in benefit are introduced in April 1996 and when the Bill's other provisions come into effect in October 1996. Opposition Members are trying to ensure that there is full public understanding of the way in which the Bill is to be introduced, including the amendments that are before us today. I think that that is very relevant business of the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether we are talking about benefit or the jobseeker's allowance, many people will apply for jobs as groundsmen at Lords now that we have beaten the West Indies for the first time since 1957?

Mr. Bradley: I do not wish to try your patience again, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I add the congratulations of Labour Members to the England cricket team on that victory. Perhaps Conservative Members can replicate the leadership lessons to be learned from the victory. As a Member of Parliament from the north-west, I am pleased that the England captain comes from the north-west of England.
It is clear that the Lords amendments would add to the insecurity being experienced by people who are unemployed or who will become unemployed as a result of Government policy. We recently debated the fact that mortgage tax relief in the income support context is to be cut. That will have a dramatic effect on people's feelings of security about their homes. The unemployed will now have their contributory benefit cut to only six months and they will be forced to use their savings—whether they be redundancy pay-outs or life savings—when means-tested benefits are introduced after only six months.
This is another example of Government policy adding to insecurity and uncertainty. It is part of a Government package that includes Lords amendments that will do nothing to create real jobs, real training and real opportunities. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, want to know—as do we—why the Government have not had the courtesy to offer the House a proper explanation of why the Bill in its real form is being delayed until October 1996.

Mr. Roger Evans: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
Lords amendment No. 1 and those grouped with it deal with a limited, narrow, technical point and improve the drafting to streamline the Bill's operation. The wider issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned might just about have some remote connection with them.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is right when he says that the Government are concerned to keep this major project under close scrutiny. In line with our announced intentions, we commissioned an external review to report on the project's progress. Significant progress has been made, but the review led us to conclude that an April 1996 implementation date would entail unacceptable risks to the streamlined and smooth delivery of an efficient service to the jobseeker. That is the legislation's purpose, and we did not want it put at risk.
The announcement of the deferral was made while the Bill was being debated in the other place. That was a perfectly proper time to explain our actions.

Ms Angela Eagle: Does the Minister agree that, if the Government did not take their legislation so


for granted, were humble enough to admit that, during the passage of legislation through both Houses, constructive and improving amendments from any part of the House might be made and did not tell civil servants to begin to implement legislation before it became law, we would not find ourselves in such a situation? Will the Minister admit that many Government amendments are made to Bills these days? Does not that indicate great change between the first and final shape of the Bill?

Mr. Evans: Clearly the hon. Lady does not understand how the Government operate. They are humble in that sense. We proceed in three stages, which are highly relevant to this issue. First, Parliament must pass the legislation. It amends the legislation. We are doing that here and now. When Parliament has passed legislation, and not before, the delegated legislation—in the form of statutory instruments—that is to be made under a Bill must be drafted, laid and approved by Parliament.
It might have struck the hon. Lady that, if one is designing complicated computer software to implement a project of this importance and complexity—given that software is more unforgiving than the law—that work cannot be completed until the legislation and delegated legislation have been prepared, laid and approved. We have followed that procedure. One plans and anticipates as far as one can, but it is clear that the parliamentary programme has meant an impossible burden on the software writing. The external review confirmed that was the appropriate course to take.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of parliamentary procedure. He said that the regulations will be laid and approved before implementation. Will he confirm that there will be votes in the House on the regulations before the legislation takes effect?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman took my shorthand explanation of the procedure too literally. He is well aware, after our debates in Committee, that the Bill involves a complex series of procedures for dealing with the regulations made under it. I was referring to that in short form. Of course we will go through the necessary procedures in due time. I was making the substantive point that one cannot write computer software until Parliament has determined the law. That is how government ought to operate and does operate—and how the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) wants it to operate if I understood her earlier sedentary intervention.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 3

THE INCOME-BASED CONDITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (4).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 41.

Mr. Bradley: I merely seek some guidance and clarification from the Minister. The amendments cover, among other things, prescription in regulation of the definition of training and other assistance. Following the Bill's passage through Committee and consideration in another place, there has been much discussion and debate on definition. Some organisations, especially colleges of further education, have some anxiety. They are worried about how training will be defined and how the reduction in supervised study from 21 to 16 hours will work in practice. That stems from anxiety about the amount of course skills that will be developed during the 16 hours of supervised study.
I seek assurances that there will be further debate and further consultation with all relevant parties as the regulations are framed to ensure that all the problems that have been identified with understanding and interpreting the forthcoming regulations are taken on board. It is important that the regulations reflect the anxieties that have been expressed. We all intend that those who seek further qualification and training, and education generally, are not limited by the benefit rules. We all want successful courses that lead to real qualifications and skills, which will lead to proper jobs.
When will the regulations on definition be laid? What consultation will the Minister undertake with the various bodies that have already been in discussions with her and her Department? Is the hon. Lady able to give us an outline of how she sees these processes unwinding over the coming months?

Miss Widdecombe: We have decided that the move from 21 to 16 hours of part-time study will be introduced in October 1996. There will be an elongation of six months. That should assist further education colleges, about which some concern was expressed, to prepare for the changes that will be introduced. The elongation should also assist students who are considering courses.
It is on the advice of further education colleges that we have decided to take the course that I have described and to seek a firm definition, which is best done on the basis of guided learning hours. The extension of time will make it possible for the colleges to consider the full implications. If, during that time, they wish to raise issues with us, we shall be delighted to take into account anything that they have to say.
The substantive amendments are purely about how we define training. They are designed to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there were three separate powers to define training in the original Bill. Those powers have now been reduced to one composite power. That was done in response to concerns expressed by the Opposition and in another place. The amendments are purely drafting amendments.
As I think we have explained, the intention is that we should have some definition of training along the lines of "Training for young people"—so we are talking about our 16 and 17-year-olds in this context—"provided directly or indirectly by a TEC under its operating agreement with the Secretary of State". We have specified that definition during proceedings on the Bill both in this House and in another place.
The objective is to be able to take on board such things as modern apprenticeships and to carry forward existing arrangements and define them as training for the purposes


of the definition. As we are trying to carry forward existing arrangements and as we have already explained and debated extensively in both places how we intend to define training, I do not believe that further consultation will benefit us. That is not to rule out any organisation putting its views to us if it wishes to do so, but there will certainly be no further formal processes of consultation.

Ms Eagle: I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about training definitions, especially as we had a fairly long debate in Committee about quality and some of the reasons for poor attendance.I wish to pick up those themes and seek some reassurance.
Will the Minister give me some idea of how the Department would react to a course I came across the other day? I am grateful to Mr. Gerry Williams of Birkenhead for pointing it out to me. It is called the jacuzzi course and is for people who are unemployed. It is run by Merseyside TEC. The leaflet says that, on Friday afternoon,
you will accept a personally engraved key to your future
complete a personal Action Plan
receive a specifically designed certificate of attendance
find the whole experience a piece of cake.
It goes on to say that participants will go to the four-star Liverpool Moat House hotel, where they will start every morning at a quarter to nine. It says:
You must meet at 8.45 am on each day in the Jacuzzi. This is an essential part of the course so please bring your 'cossie' each day.
Each day you will be served a top quality lunch in the hotel restaurant and you may well meet celebrities staying in the hotel.
As enjoyable as that sounds, is it reasonable to count that as training for the purposes of the Jobseekers Bill? Should we not try to do something that is slightly more relevant?
I would not define the jacuzzi course as training. I might define it as a nice, enjoyable thing. Perhaps the unemployed should be allowed access to the Moat House hotel, but it seems an odd use of public money. If one of my constituents was offered the jacuzzi course and said, "I would rather try to find a job or do some computer training and establish new skills," he might be told that he would lose his benefit unless he agreed to do the jacuzzi course. Perhaps the Minister could say something about the issue and tell us whether the definition of training will make the jacuzzi course compulsory.

Miss Widdecombe: I am worried that, now that the hon. Lady has read out the details of that course, there might be more applications for it than Merseyside TEC can possibly manage. I have no details of the course. That is regrettable, because it sounds fascinating. The hon. Lady read out selected quotations. I do not know the entire picture. Therefore, I am most unwilling to comment on a particular type of course. However, I am sufficiently fascinated to look into it further. I shall write a letter about jacuzzi courses to the hon. Lady when I have established the facts.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

AVAILABILITY FOR, AND ACTIVELY SEEKING, EMPLOYMENT

Lords amendment: No. 6, to leave out clause 6 and insert the following new clauses—Availability for employment—


(".—(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is available for employment if he is willing and able to take up immediately any employed earner's employment.
(2) Subsection (1) is subject to such provisions as may be made by regulations; and those regulations may, in particular, provide that a person—

(a) may restrict his availability for employment in any week in such ways as may be prescribed; or
(b) may restrict his availability for employment in any week in such circumstances as may be prescribed (for example, on grounds of conscience, religious conviction or physical or mental condition or because he is caring for another person) and in such ways as may be prescribed.

(3) The following are examples of restrictions for which provision may be made by the regulations—

(a) restrictions on the nature of the employment for which a person is available;
(b) restrictions on the periods for which he is available;
(c) restrictions on the terms or conditions of employment for which he is available;
(d) restrictions on the locality or localities within which he is available.

(4) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is or is not to be treated as available for employment.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, provide for a person who is available for employment—

(a) only in his usual occupation,
(b) only at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, or
(c) only in his usual occupation and at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, to be treated, for a permitted period, as available for employment.

(6) Where it has been determined ("the first determination") that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as available for employment in any week, the question whether he is available for employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination.
(7) In this section "permitted period", in relation to any person, means such period as may be determined in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (4).
(8) Regulations under subsection (4) may prescribe, in relation to permitted periods—

(a) the day on which any such period is to be regarded as having begun in any case;
(b) the shortest and longest periods which may be determined in any case;
(c) factors which an adjudication officer may take into account in determining the period in any case.

(9) For the purposes of this section "employed earner's employment" has the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.

ACTIVELY SEEKING EMPLOYMENT

.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is actively seeking employment in any week if he takes in that week such steps as he can reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.

(2) Regulations may make provision—

(a) with respect to steps which it is reasonable, for the purposes of subsection (1), for a person to be expected to have to take in any week;
(b) as to circumstances (for example, his skills, qualifications, abilities and physical or mental limitations) which, in particular, are to be taken into account in determining whether, in relation to any steps taken by a person, the requirements of subsection (1) are satisfied in any week.

(3) Regulations may make provision for acts of a person which would otherwise be relevant for purposes of this section to be disregarded in such circumstances (including circumstances constituted by, or connected with, his behaviour or appearance) as may be prescribed.

(4) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is to be treated as actively seeking employment.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, provide for a person who is actively seeking employment—

(a) only in his usual occupation,
(b) only at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, or
(c) only in his usual occupation and at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive,

to be treated, for the permitted period determined in his case for the purposes of section 6(5), as actively seeking employment during that period.

(6) Regulations may provide for this section, and any regulations made under it, to have effect in relation to a person who has reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18 as if "employment" included "training".

(7) Where it has been determined ("the first determination") that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as actively seeking employment in any week, the question whether he is actively seeking employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination.

(8) For the purposes of this section—
employment" means employed earner's employment or, in prescribed circumstances—

(a) self-employed earner's employment; or
(b) employed earner's employment and self-employed earner's employment; and

employed earner's employment" and "self-employed earner's employment" have the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.

ATTENDANCE, INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE

.—(1) Regulations may make provision for requiring a claimant—

(a) to attend at such place and at such time as the Secretary of State may specify; and
(b) to provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to his circumstances, his availability for employment and the extent to which he is actively seeking employment.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—

(a) prescribe circumstances in which entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is to cease in the case of a claimant who fails to comply with any regulations made under that subsection;
(b) provide for entitlement to cease at such time (after he last attended in compliance with requirements of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a)) as may be determined in accordance with any such regulations;
(c) provide for entitlement not to cease if the claimant shows, within a prescribed period of his failure to comply, that he - had good cause for that failure; and
(d) prescribe—


(i) matters which are, or are not, to be taken into account in determining whether a person has, or does not have, good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations; and
(ii) circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as having, or not having good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in first proposed new clause, in subsection (2)(a), after 'prescribed;', insert—

'(aa) may restrict his availability for employment in any week by refusing employment which may reasonably be expected to impair his future career prospects;'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 6, in first proposed new clause, after subsection (2)(c) insert—
'(cc) restrictions on the rate of remuneration of employment for which he is available;'.
Lords amendments Nos. 8, 24, 29, 33, No. 36 and amendment (a) thereto, No. 39 and amendment (b) thereto, and No. 53.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Amendment (a) is one of a range of amendments to clause 6 to which I shall allude. Hopefully, some of my hon. Friends will also be allowed to speak to amendment (a).
Within three hours of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tabling amendment (a), the Prime Minister had resigned. Within 24 hours, the Foreign Secretary had announced his intention to retire, and the Secretary of State for Wales resigned today. There is no truth in the rumour that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury provided a smoking gun free of charge.
In what will become the Redwood amendment, we should like to know where the Minister stands. Planet Vulcan is in the ascendancy, eclipsing planet Portillo, and both are on collision course for planet—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the matters which are under consideration, or which ought to be under consideration.

Mr. McCartney: I am trying to get the Minister in a relaxed mood.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not interested in relaxing anybody. Please get to the main point.

Mr. McCartney: After the jokes that we heard about the jacuzzi, I thought that I was speaking in the spirit of the House. However, I do not wish to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I do occasionally.
The amendment is about insecurity at work. Are the new clauses a Government apology? On Second Reading and in Committee, my hon. Friends and I made it clear that clause 6 was not only badly worded and draconian in its dealings with the unemployed, but was so wide ranging that its implementation could mean anything. Our amendments, many of which we moved in Committee, tried to elicit what was in the Government's mind, and also sought to improve the clause. We tried to ensure that, when it arrived in the other place, the principle of the Government's intention to attack the unemployed instead of unemloyment was understood.
The clause was unamended when it went to the other place. Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members of the other place, and Cross Benchers, decided that the Government were wrong about clause 6. Therefore, the Minister owes the House and the other place an apology for the Government's arrogance in failing to recognise the weight of evidence about the way that they proceeded on the issue.
At the heart of the matter is the Government's drive to open up the labour market and create even further work insecurity for many people. The amendment is designed to


protect people who, through no fault of their own, become unemployed for short or long periods. As a result of the legislation and the interpretation placed on clause 6 by officers of the Government, those people will have no income early in their unemployment.
The Government have used temporary employment and other measures as arms of economic activity. Over the two years between autumn 1992 and autumn 1994, the net rise in jobs was entirely in non-permanent employment. Temporary employment grew by nearly 260,000 jobs, but total employment grew by fewer than 160,000. That means that permanent employment continued to fall.
In December 1994, the Department of Employment admitted to me that 587,000 people were in temporary jobs because they could not find permanent work. Some 43 per cent. of all temporary workers wish to have permanent employment. Temporary work, which is increasingly dominated by fixed-term contracts that allow employers to avoid employment rights—notably on dismissal and redundancy pay—is rife. Temporary workers are excluded from long-term benefits such as occupational pension schemes and training.
The number of people working part-time because they cannot find full-time work has increased by more than 60 per cent. in the past 10 years. There are now 850,000 involuntary part-timers in the British economy, representing about 14 per cent. of the total work force.

Miss Widdecombe: That is a very misleading figure. The percentage of those who are in part-time work but who would prefer to have full-time jobs has been steady over the past 10 years, at between 13 and 14 per cent. There has been no change in the proportion, and the increase of which the hon. Gentleman speaks is due purely to the increase in part-time workers and the growth of the work force as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is not being entirely fair.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has got it wrong again. During this recession, 1.7 million full-time jobs were lost. People no longer have a choice in the labour market. All they are offered is part-time or temporary work or nothing, and the Bill will deliver even more people into that scenario. Their simple choice will be a loss of benefit or a loss of career, status or income if they do not accept part-time temporary employment.
That is a key factor in the Government's economic policy. The Minister does not like us saying that, because the Government have been rumbled by the public. That is why there is no feel-good factor in the economy. How could one feel good trying to pay rent or a mortgage or trying to develop a career in part-time employment? It cannot be done, and the Minister knows it.
Instead of trying to reduce inequality and insecurity in the labour force, the Minister has introduced a Bill to cut benefits by £400 million a year. She will take about 90,000 off the register altogether, and another 150,000 people will have their benefits reduced by between 20 and 70 per cent. The measures are supposed to develop and improve people's employment opportunities, but that is nonsense. That has been recognised, and it is why many of the Government's social and economic policies are a shambles. The Minister cannot glibly get away from that.
According to a labour force survey, in the winter of 1994–95, there were, believe it or not, 26,000 unemployed teachers and lecturers, and 14,000 unemployed nurses and midwives. There is a crisis in education and in the health service, but tens of thousands of doctors, nurses, midwives and teachers are on the dole. What does the Bill propose to do about those people? The Minister suggests that they should be denied benefit if, for example, they refuse to take jobs in burger bars. They may be offered other low-paid jobs, which would mean that they would have to work long hours to make ends meet.
In her perorations in Committee, the Minister did not outline her intentions. However, she said that the clause would be widely interpreted. People want to maintain the level of skills they had in their former employment, but the clause will undermine that possibility. After 13 weeks of unemployment benefit, such people will be forced into low-paid work or removed from the register, thereby being denied the right to income.

Miss Widdecombe: What new provisions against which the hon. Gentleman rants so wildly are being introduced? At the moment, it is not permissible for somebody to turn down a job merely on the basis of its nature or the level of pay. What is new? What is in the Bill that is not already in the system and has been working well for a long time?

Mr. McCartney: When the hon. Lady does not like what someone is saying, she describes it as a rant. She is getting boring. When someone shows a bit of passion because of an interest in people who are in difficult circumstances, the hon. Lady describes it as a rant.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should answer the question.

Mr. McCartney: I will answer the question, but I am surprised that I have to answer it, after all the months that we have spent on this legislation. The Government propose to reduce the period during which unemployment benefit is paid, from 12 months to six months. Instead of having 12 months to get back into their career structure, people will have only six months.
In addition, however, the hon. Lady knows that, after 13 weeks, individuals will be asked whether they will accept another form of employment, and they will be offered part-time, temporary employment. If they do not accept it, after 13 weeks—not after 26 weeks—they will lose their right to benefit. That is the truth of the matter, and that is what the Bill is about.
The hon. Lady should be honest about it. That is what she is proposing, both in relation to its principle, and in terms of what she said in Committee. Clause 6 is about implementing that principle of undermining people's rights to benefit where they seek appropriate work in a labour market.

Miss Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the present rules, even if a person is on contributory benefit—and has been on it for 12 months—and if, in the course of that time, he is offered a job, he is not allowed to turn it down merely on the basis of pay levels and nature of work? What will change?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady is wriggling and wriggling and wriggling, but she cannot get away from the concept and principle of the Bill, by which she has


reduced people's entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months, while at the same time increasing national insurance contributions. It is a matter, therefore, not only of paying more, but of getting less and being blamed for unemployment caused by the Government's crass economic policies.
I shall give hon. Lady another figure that she might not like and that I should like her to explain. Why is it that, leading up to the introduction of the Bill, benefit disqualifications have increased by a devastating 81 per cent? In 1991–92, referrals for benefit disqualification totalled 142,300, and disqualifications totalled 68,800—a disqualification rate of 48 per cent. However, in the run-up to this legislation, with the Government already putting in place, with the Benefits Agency and others, as part of their massaging of the unemployment figures, targets for the reduction of people who could have the right to benefit, the referral rate has increased dramatically, to 200,400.
Disqualifications, however, are up to 162,400–81 per cent. of people now referred are disqualified because of the draconian interpretation of the legislation. I shall give examples of what the Minister does in terms of her Department's political direction and the consequences for everyone in the labour market, particularly people who find great difficulty in gaining employment.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) who said on Second Reading that, if the Government provided employment measures, jobseekers would look after themselves. That is a general paraphrase, but his analysis was correct. If the Government did not stand back, but became involved with both the public and private sectors in stimulating the economy and the development of a job strategy, people who seek employment would quickly and readily seek and gain employment in the labour market.
Even the Government's strategic surveys show that more than 80 per cent. of people seeking employment are absolutely desperate for employment, and will take almost any job at any price. The Bill is about driving them down even further, in cutting their rights to adequate training, employment levels and standards at work, including employment in terms of labour markets and the right to a minimum wage.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are considering not the whole Bill, but a group of amendments, including his own, which he is supposedly moving.

Mr. McCartney: I am moving my amendments. Clause 6 is at the heart of the Bill. As Conservative Members will know, it contains availability for work provisions and is wide-ranging because of the amendments in another place. Our amendments are on the Order Paper. They cover a range of issues relating to the clause, they have all been accepted by the Speaker as in order, and they are contained within the family of amendments relating to the clause. I said at the beginning that I intended to refer to the other amendments that were rightly on the Order Paper. That is what I am doing, and intend to continue to do, in making my points about the Bill.
Other fears have been expressed on the labour market system that will replace current computer systems in Employment Service job centres. It is feared that it will be

used to refer more claimants for adjudication in relation to refusing vacancies, rather than to improve the matching of claimants to suitable jobs.
Currently, refusal of vacancies offered by the Employment Service carries a benefit sanction of up to six months, but with automatic hardship payments for those eligible for income support. Under the jobseeker's regime, those automatic hardship payments will cease, and all claimants will have to demonstrate hardship, with childless claimants banned from making an application in the first two weeks of sanction—for two weeks, they will be without any form of income.
The figures on the strategy, even before the Bill is passed, outline the savagery of the present arrangements. After the Minister intervened, I said that the levels of referrals and disqualifications were at record levels. Those record levels will increase dramatically with the passing of the Bill, and in particular clause 6.
It is true that, along with clause 6, the Government will utilise other connected measures to undermine and further restrict the capability of unemployed people to meet the requirements of the availability for work tests. It is astonishing that, when we should be freeing up the restrictions to make it easier for people to seek employment, the Government, through clause 6, will restrict people if they are unable to explain fully that efforts have been made to seek employment.
Under clause 6, they will not be encouraged to seek employment; they will be undermined and will run the risk of losing benefit. That will involve people studying part-time, those looking for employment, those doing both, people with disability, and carers. On a range of issues, the clause will undermine people, and for what? Simply to cut the training budget and the benefits already paid to those in employment.
I want to give an absolute example of what I am talking about, and why the Minister and her hon. Friends are increasingly treated with utter contempt outside this place. A constituent of mine visited me. some four weeks ago. He has living difficulties and special needs. He resides with his brother, who provides him with the support required to cope with day-to-day routine. Up to 1990, he was in regular employment, either in sheltered or semi-sheltered accommodation, or in the private sector doing unskilled work. Since then, he has been unable to find employment.
My constituent was invited to an interview. Despite his disabilities, there was no referral to a disability officer—he was given no right to be represented, but was brought in on his own for the interview. He was asked what his wishes were in respect of employment, and he answered honestly: he wished to work in a factory or a warehouse or to find some other form of manual occupation.
He was then asked what he meant by that, and how many hours he would like to work. He stated that he was prepared to work from 8 am until 4 pm on Monday to Friday, and from 8 am to 12 noon on Saturday—a total of 44 hours, six days a week. He said that there was no restriction on how much he should earn, but the hours were in relation to his own personal circumstances and the need for his brother to assist him to and from work. The Minister's Department has a record of sheltered accommodation.
After supplying the information, my constituent received a letter from the Employment Service threatening his entitlement to benefit. Naturally, that caused him


concern. When he and his brother came to my advice centre, they were in a state of distress. I thought that there must have been an error—no more than that—and that it could not be true. My constituent had offered to work 44 hours a week, six days a week. He did not give a level of income—he would take whatever was provided to him.
The acting senior adjudication manager wrote to me. The letter states:
Any person who claims unemployment benefit must be capable of and available for work.
Fine.
However, if they … impose restrictions on the nature of the work they will accept, or the hours they will work, or the rate they will accept, or the locality of the employment, or any other conditions they are prepared to accept, they would not be entitled to unemployment benefit … unless they can show that they have reasonable prospects of finding work within the restrictions".
The restrictions are: being willing to work 44 hours, six days a week, for any amount of money. My constituent did not ask for travelling time, or even for time off or lunch breaks—nothing. All he asked for was a reasonable time so that he could be assisted back home because of his disabilities.
The letter continued:
The person who interviewed
my constituent
explained that employers who employ people for the types of work that he was looking for…mainly require greater flexibility in day time hours than those stated on the form and often require shift work.
So six days, 44 hours, a week, are not enough any more.
The letter continued:
In
my constituent's
case there is no evidence in the papers we have to show that the only reason he can work from 8 am to 4 pm Monday to Friday and 8 am to 12 noon on Saturday is because of his physical or mental condition.
My constituent was refused benefit, he has lost all right to an income, and his elderly brother now has to look after him on his meagre income. Is that.really the way the employment market must operate? It is a consequence of the Minister's policies. That is the reality.

5 pm

Miss Widdecombe: Given the rather unsatisfactory state of affairs resulting from the facts as the hon. Gentleman has stated them, why did not he make me aware of the case? Will he now do so, and allow me to examine it?

Mr. McCartney: I shall certainly send the case to the hon. Lady. Is she now giving the commitment that, when hon. Members submit cases and questions to her, she will not refer them to the chief executive of the agency? Will she no longer say, "The chief executive will answer, because this is not my responsibility"?
She cannot have it both ways. She knows that, as a matter of course, she and her colleagues refer Members' complaints and cases back to the person to whom we originally complained. The hon. Lady cannot wriggle out of the embarrassment of her policies with the weak, limp excuse that I should have written to her. The case is a consequence of her policies.

Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his continuing generosity in giving way, if not for the generosity of his comments. As a courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I offered to look carefully at the case. In the first instance, anything that refers to the way in which a particular case has been handled in a particular employment office would go to the Employment Service. However, that is not to say that a Minister would never become involved.
On the broader point, will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is making the case for the Bill? It specifies 40 hours general availability, and the jobseeker's agreement will set out the exact times that people can work. Agreements can be made about restrictions. I have already particularly quoted disability as a reason for a restriction. If the restriction is not acceptable, the case can go through a process of adjudication. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman now admit that he is making the case for the Bill?

Mr. McCartney: To be perfectly frank, that is an absolutely silly comment. The current regulations are replicated in the Bill. The hon. Lady knows that the gentleman in my case already has current rights because of his disability. The problem is the Government's constant drive to undermine people's rights to benefit. Instead, they should be doing something about the high unemployment level. The Department is taking draconian action, even against the most vulnerable in the community who are seeking employment. It beggars belief that the hon. Lady should suggest that the case I have cited makes the case for the Bill.
The clause is all about continuing draconian measures and leaving people vulnerable to the possibility of losing their rights to benefit over a whole range of circumstances, including disability. The reason we raised the issue in Committee and again today is that the Minister has not even convinced the disability groups that the Bill's proposals will protect people with disabilities—especially the changes in incapacity benefit. Those changes, together with this clause, are a major attack on people with disabilities in the labour market.
I want to deal now with the question of restrictions and the rate of remuneration for employment. Our amendment in this respect goes to the heart of the Government's policies in the labour market. We know that the Government want the longest working hours in Europe—and they have achieved that, after 16 years. We know that the Government want the least holiday entitlement in Europe—they have achieved that after 16 years. We know that the Government want the poorest pensions in Europe—they have achieved that after 16 years. We know that they want the highest levels of insecurity in Europe—they have achieved that after 16 years. Finally, they want to impose the lowest pay in Europe. Britain's wage rates are still just above those of the new entrants to the European Union, but the Government plod on regardless.
The final piece of the Government's jigsaw to deregulate the labour market and introduce insecurity in the marketplace is their wish to drive down pay rates. As part of their strategy, they have removed the legal right of young people under 21 not to be paid paltry wages and salaries. They have abolished the wages councils and inspectorates that helped to protect millions of workers. As a result, in real terms the Government have driven down the wages of many people, among them the most vulnerable workers, in many sectors of the economy.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I hope that my hon. Friend intends to comment on the latest developments in Government policy—to force people to take out insurance policies against unemployment.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right—the Government believe that the market can resolve anything and everything. Of course, the vast majority of unemployed people cannot afford insurance. The Government are also trying to force people to take out mortgage insurance policies. They want to opt out—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the matter that is being considered. I suggest that he continues with the main thrust of his argument.

Mr. McCartney: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too soft with hon. Members, and allow them to take me down highways and byways. I shall try to be a little tougher with interventions.
After 16 years of Tory government, the bottom tenth of the population is 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms than when the Conservative party took office. The proportion of households living in poverty has tripled, from 7 to 24 per cent. since the late 1970s. Some 300,000 people earn less than £1.50 an hour. At least 1.3 million people earn less than £2.50 an hour. Women are badly hit by low pay, with almost 700,000 of them earning less than £2.50 an hour.
In every region of Britain where unemployment is high, there is low pay—whether it be Yorkshire, Humberside, the north, London, the east or the west midlands, the eastern region or the south-west of England. High unemployment goes hand in hand and side by side with low pay.
We now know that, between 1984 and 1994, there has been an increase of more than 1 million people holding down two—sometimes even three—part-time or temporary jobs just to make ends meet. A further 4.5 million people earn so little that they live on or below the poverty line. That is the reality, after 16 years of the Tory Government's economic miracle.
Young people are also badly hit. One in three earn less than the national insurance threshold of £57 a week. Eight out of 10 jobs for 16-year-olds, and seven out of 10 for 17-year-olds, now pay less than £2 an hour. Since 1990, hourly pay rates have fallen in real terms by 15 per cent. for 16-year-olds and by 11 per cent. for 17-year-olds. Low pay is not an accident; it is a central feature of Tory economic policy. It is a central feature of the Bill. The Government, through the Bill, will drive down wages even -further.
I want to refer to the hypocrisy of the Government and their absolute audacity in saying on the one hand that they want to introduce a minimum wage, while on the other giving support to people like Iain Valiance, the chairman of British Telecom, who earns £383 an hour—more than the 1.3 million to whom I referred earn in four weeks; and to Cedric Brown—good old Cedric—the chief executive of British Gas, who earns £9,838.50 per week, what those 1.3 million people earn in two years.
Lord Young, the former Tory Cabinet Minister who is chairman of Cable and Wireless, attacked teachers for their greed earlier this year. Lord Young earns more in one month than those 1. 3 million people earn in a decade. Lord Younger, another former Tory Cabinet Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I must remind him that, although this group of amendments is reasonably wide, it is certainly not wide enough to include extended references such as the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. McCartney: The heart of the Bill and the jobseeker's agreement is that people will be required to indicate before they get benefit what level of pay they will work for. The Government will take measures in respect of those at the lowest level of income to ensure that those people work for £1 an hour or less. Those at the upper level—those who earn more in a month than millions of people earn in a decade—suffer no restrictions on their incomes, and are in fact encouraged.
That is why it is important to highlight not just the hypocrisy of the measure, but the social injustice and unfairness of it. The British people will be outraged if the Bill goes through tonight without an appropriate debate about how the Government defend the rights of fat cats while undermining the rights of the low paid.
The Secretary of State for Employment, whom I have renamed the Secretary of State for greed and privilege, is a vociferous opponent of the amendment, which is a precursor to a minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman earns £1,304.21 a week; more than 15 million Britons earn in a month. The Government have no shame at all when it comes to this issue.

Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend may not be aware that a lemonade factory in my constituency is paying folk who have worked in the place for 20 years £1.90 an hour. There is a sweetie factory not far from my home which nearly pays its workers in sweeties—they are paid £2 an hour. One woman—a top confectioner with about 30 years' experience—went to work at the factory and was told that she was to be given a short-term contract. After that contract was finished, she was to be given £2.50 an hour. It is mind-boggling that, the Government are allowing our folk to be paid in sweeties.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill will provide unscrupulous employers with a large number of unemployed people from local labour markets who can be paid on or below benefit levels. There is no minimum level in respect of the right to refuse employment measure under the legislation, which means that the Secretary of State is telling unscrupulous employers that they can offer through his Department a range of jobs—full-time, part-time or temporary, it does not matter—with pay on or below the level of benefit. The Department will secure a number of people from the ranks of the unemployed to take those jobs. That is deeply anti-competitive, as well as unfair.
What about the local employers in the labour market who pay decent wages, train people and have proper standards? They will be undermined by the proposal, which is about not just social unfairness and injustice but economic strategy. The Bill shows us why we need to invest in people and in the research and development of goods and services. People should not compete for skivvy pay in skivvy jobs and insecurity at work. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Minister.

Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that paying people such low wages undermines the national insurance system, as so many people earn under the threshold and


will not pay into the system? Not only does the Bill undermine the national insurance system by means-testing benefit for the first time: it completely destabilises the system, because so many people will simply not earn enough to make contributions.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is a part of the long-term strategy of the Government. The Bill is essentially an enabling piece of legislation—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman—not for the first time—that we are considering not the whole Bill, but a group of amendments.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was making a point about the £57 national insurance contribution threshold. Under the clause with which the amendment deals, individuals who refuse to take up employment at or below—sometimes significantly below—the benefit level will lose their right to benefit. That is the point that my hon. Friend was making.
The scheme will result in a net loss to the Exchequer from national insurance, which the Government want to make up by private insurance schemes. That is why I said that the Bill forms part of a wider agenda to rid ourselves of the whole principle of contributory benefits and replace them with private sector insurance.
Is it not astonishing that someone who gets over the first hurdle and says that he will work for wages on or below the benefit level is not given the key to opportunity or success, or a guarantee of employment or a training scheme? Not at all. If they are 18 to 24 years old, they are guaranteed that they will immediately lose 20 per cent. of their current benefit. For co-operating with the Government and agreeing to accept wages below £2 or £1 an hour, that person is fined £499.
An 18 to 24-year-old who has a partner working full-time and who agrees to accept all the restrictions placed on him by the Government is not congratulated or thanked—not a bit of it. He loses £1,457, or 60 per cent. of his income. For simply agreeing to participate in the jobseeker's measures, those who already have the lowest incomes and who are living in absolute poverty have a 60 per cent. cut in their income.
How do the Government expect these families to live? How-can they possibly live on the same level of income for a year that Sir Iain Valiance receives in just over an hour? It is astonishing that the Government believe that people in Britain will accept such purgatory as we come to the millennium.
Those who are aged 25 and over and who are working full-time will lose 50 per cent. of their benefit. Those of a similar age who have £8,000 savings—those who have done what the Government asked them to do, and who have tried to save when they worked, and to get redundancy if they lost their jobs—lose 70 per cent. of their income. That is scandalous.
For all those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment. If Conservative Members are serious about ridding this country of

inequality and insecurity, and about investing to create employment and success while not taxing for failure, they should also support the amendment.

Mr. Alan Howarth: New clause 6—which Lords amendment No.6 incorporates—is the core of the Bill. A range of highly contentious propositions in the Bill are found there.
I am concerned that the requirement that a jobseeker should be available for any employment may have some miserable consequences, and I take it that the amendment to which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has just spoken has been tabled with that thought very much in mind.
I fear that the requirement to be available for any employment will lead to more poverty in work. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify to the House—perhaps other hon. Members know the answer—whether it is the Government's policy that the jobseeker should be required to accept jobs that pay below the income support or jobseeker's allowance rate. If that is the case, there will be some very worrying implications, and it will certainly lead to much destitution and suffering. My hon. Friend may wish to respond to that point when she winds up.
If that were to be the Government's policy, it would also lead to a deterioration in the quality of our economy. We would be moving towards a low-pay, low-skill and low-productivity economy. Such a strategy would carry with it mounting costs in terms of social security, health expenditure and expenditure on law and order—the very escalation in public expenditure which my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to avert.
Some of our most modern and, indeed, best-known employers will be all too ready to exploit the absence of any floor to pay. We hear, for example, of the phenomenon which is, I believe, known as reservism, whereby a person is taken on—employed—by, for example, a retailer, but has to wait by the telephone for the moment at which he or, more commonly, she may be required. Such people have to be available for 40 hours, but they are expected to work for only 15 hours. The particular difficulty is that it becomes impossible for those employees to put together a portfolio of earnings that is sufficient to keep.them in decency and dignity.

Miss Widdecombe: I am becoming increasingly puzzled by references by the Opposition and now by my hon. Friend to changes in the law. There is currently no floor underneath somebody's right to refuse a job. If we do not have adverse effects at the moment, why, if there is no change, does my hon. Friend believe that there will be substantial adverse effects in the future?

Mr. Howarth: I would have hoped that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have taken advantage of this legislative opportunity to ensure positively that the eventualities that I apprehend do not occur.
Consideration of availability for employment necessitates consideration of the policies and regulations on study and training. We need to upgrade our labour force—in the words of Disraeli, to
elevate the condition of the people.
I fear that the Bill fails to take the opportunity that it might to do that. The Labour party's amendment (a) is also germane to education and training.
The proposed new clause, the subject of the Lords amendment, requires a jobseeker to be immediately available for work. My right hon. and hon. Friends have given some considerable attention to the relationship between study and benefits under the jobseeker's allowance. I fear, however, that they may have missed the opportunity for a thorough-going reform of this area of policy. That is what is needed, because we must make up our minds that we are going to invest in our nation's skills and in the intellectual quality of our labour force. Today's labour market requires literacy, numeracy, ever-greater degrees of intellectual sophistication and, of course, a capacity to handle with ease information technology, as well as personal confidence and adaptability. All that argues for higher and higher levels of education and training.
Long-term unemployment is certainly concentrated among those who have few or no qualifications. I, like Opposition Members, fear that our society may be polarising, essentially between those who have fared well in the education system and those who have not. A Tory Government cannot wish to promote such polarisation.
I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will cost the taxpayer more in the long term if we fail to invest in education and training. Even from the point of view of the Treasury, that must make sense. I recognise, of course, that there are difficulties in using the jobseeker's allowance as a means of subsistence for students in a range of circumstances. The job of Ministers, however, is to overcome the difficulties to achieve the purposes that, we are all agreed, are desirable. We need much more flexibility built into the system. We need bridges at least between the system of grants for education, the system of funding for training that comes from the Department of Employment and the benefits system. I cannot see that we are using the opportunity of policy-making in the Bill to achieve that kind of constructive integration.
My right hon. and hon. Friends may fear that, if we invested, through whatever system, more extensively in education and training, there would be a terrible visitation by the financial markets because the Government would be found guilty by the markets of letting public expenditure rip. I strongly suspect that international investors would prefer to invest in an economy that was upgrading its skills and intellectual capacity than in an economy that was devaluing them. I have been puzzled, therefore, by the decision to cut the training budget and by the rumour which is now circulating that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has offered the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a further cut in his Department's budget in this year's public expenditure negotiations.
Come what may, we must extend to all improved education and training opportunities. We must extend them to the low-paid, to people working in small businesses, to people doing part-time work and to people who have hitherto been poorly educated. Nowadays, we are not bad at providing better opportunities for those who are already relatively successful and advantaged, but we must ensure that these opportunities are extended throughout our society and our labour force.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be too preoccupied with the few who may "study" as a device to avoid work. The huge majority of the unemployed want to be able to work and they want to be able to work in better jobs.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister envisages that, as a result of the changes that she has introduced, including the change from a 21-hour to a 16-hour rule, no fewer people will have the opportunity for study while they are unemployed than at present. We should, however, be trying to bring to many more people that kind of opportunity. It is getting easier for us to do so, if we want to, because of the development of modular courses and because of the new technologies, such as cable, that people are able to access to learn. We can now break out of some of the old rigidities in our approach and find new ways in which to make education and training a positive outcome, in the jargon, in terms of the Department's policies.
It is now quite safe to ignore the whole question of hours of study and to ignore the distinction, which is becoming increasingly blurred, between full-time and part-time study. We need the jobseeker's agreement to take sensible account of the studies and the upgrading of skills on which unemployed people embark and we need, of course, the colleges, the further and higher education institutions, to be flexible in helping people to continue to study once they are back in work.
The hon. Member for Makerfield spoke about the "permitted period" when considering career prospects and skills. It seems to me that the existing 13-week permitted period, which the Government intend to carry forward in the new system, in which a jobseeker is allowed, without forfeit, to look for a job that matches his skills and experience, is too short. It seems to me prodigal and destructive that, after only 13 weeks, we should set aside the accumulated skills and experience that someone has built up over, perhaps, quite a long working life.
I now turn to some of the exemptions that occur under the proposed new clause and, in particular, under proposed subsection (2)(b). I welcome the Government's recognition that in certain circumstances, the physical or mental condition of a jobseeker ought to entitle that person to some exemption from the full rigours of the requirement to be available for work.
We need clarification and one of our problems is that we do not have the regulations under the Bill before us, so it is difficult to judge what the policy may mean in precise terms. We understand that the Government expect 190,000 people to appeal against a decision to refuse them incapacity benefit. It might take about 26 weeks for appeals to be heard, during which time they have an option to sign on, but being to some extent disabled they might find it difficult to fulfil the requirements to be available for and actively seeking work, or to claim income support, but only at 80 per cent.
5.30 pm
The Minister in another place, Lord Mackay, said that, rather than changing the rules, one must act with sensitivity in each case, which is an attractive idea but would be a break with precedent, judging by the history of what has occurred with invalidity benefit and people appealing against refusal. They have not always found officials in jobcentres as sensitive as my noble Friend would wish. If I can catch the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for a moment, I would be grateful if she could tell us clearly in her reply whether an appeal against refusal of incapacity benefit would prejudice a claim for jobseeker's allowance.
New clause 6 also touches on the delicate question of behaviour and appearance. While I recognise the Government's valid concern that some people who claim


the benefit and pretend to be looking for work will present themselves so offensively that no right-minded employer would take them on, we may be exaggerating the danger and giving Employment Service officials a licence for officiousness. So I have a third request of my hon. Friend the Minister.
Will she undertake that officials will not deprive any jobseeker of benefit because they find their behaviour objectionable on the grounds of religious practice or sexuality, or on grounds of appearance—for example, the length of their hair? May I have an assurance from my hon. Friend that in no circumstances will it be tolerable for officials to deprive people of benefit on such subjective and prejudiced grounds? I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but it would be helpful to have it on the record.
The Bill's provisions allow much scope for officiousness and for a martinetish or even bullying approach on the part of officials. The huge majority would not conduct themselves in such a way, but the requirements on attendance, for example, lend themselves to that danger.
The new clause also provides for penalties. The legislation already involves penalties on a much broader scale. People who are unemployed for a year will find that they lose between 20 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the benefit that they would have had under the old system. As has been said, people will lose contributory benefit after six months instead of 12 and will find themselves in the poverty trap that much earlier. There is some anxiety about the adult dependant's allowance disappearing from contributory benefit and about the lower rate of benefit for the under-25s being transferred from income support to contributory benefit.
Penalties already exist in a certain sense, but there will be penalties in another. They may be draconian and could be administered somewhat arbitrarily. If, for example, a single person under 25 is penalised and finds herself on only 60 per cent. of the jobseeker's allowance, it will amount to only £22.10 a week, which is awfully little to live on. If an official thinks that a single person—or a childless couple—is insufficiently energetic in the search for work, he may even refuse a hardship payment. Even someone who has contributed to national insurance might be without income on the mere doubt of an employment officer. That does not seem to be the highest state of the welfare state.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think carefully about the application of penalties to people in the 50-plus and certainly the 55-plus age group. At the moment, that age group is expected to be active in the search for work, but for all too many people in the group the jobs are not there and it would be cruel to require such people to go on that dismal merry-go-round.
I am less optimistic than I might be about how the system will work in practice because of the annual performance agreement with the Employment Service and the target set for officials to challenge a certain proportion of claims to benefit.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows well, I dislike the substance of the Bill. The little that it will do to promote employment or to save money does not redeem it. It sets aside the national insurance contract—[Interruption.] It is nice of the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for

Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), to sit beside me and keep me company, but I have a little more to say and must detain the House for a few more minutes. I hope that he will not mind too much. I appreciate the fact that other hon. Members want to speak and I know that that is his concern.
It is even more astonishing that contributory benefits should be reduced in a year when contributions have risen. The Government have altered the terms of that contract and have introduced an agreement of a different kind in the Bill—the jobseeker's agreement. I have never heard, however, of an agreement or a contract that falls to be arbitrated by one of the parties to it and under which one party may impose penalties. In such circumstances, to talk of a jobseeker's agreement is an abuse of language in an abuse of power.
If the substance of the Bill is objectionable, so too is the manner of the enactment. We are indebted to the admirable House of Lords Select Committee—the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—and to members of that unreformed and unelected House for amendments Nos. 36 and 39, which deal with the regulation-making powers. Members of the House of Lords have proved more vigilant in the defence of the liberties of the people than the people's elected House of Commons, and it is by no means the first time.
The power of the Select Committee's arguments in its reports was such that the Government bowed to their Lordships' insistence that clause 6 be re-committed. I appreciate and welcome the fact that the Government agreed to rewrite it, to fill out the definitions and to make regulations under it subject to the affirmative procedure. That is as well, because clause 6 still provides large powers to make regulations to control the practical implications of the requirements to be available for work and actively to seek it.
As the Minister in another place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, acknowledged, the Bill is a skeleton Bill. Paragraph 16 of the memorandum from the Departments of Employment and Social Security to the House of Lords Select Committee stated:
The Bill has 87 subsections and 17 paragraphs of Schedule 1 which contain powers to create delegated legislation.
The Bill would effectively give the Government carte blanche to determine policy as they will.
Is it right for Parliament to delegate law-making powers so extensively? Under most sections of the Bill, regulations will still be approved under the negative resolution procedure, even after these amendments. In effect, that means on the nod. Whatever the Government want will be approved by Parliament automatically, unless it is one of the few pieces of secondary legislation that is prayed against.
This is not trivial legislation, nor should our responsibility in the House be taken lightly. Clause 6, which deals with the requirement to be available for work and seek work actively, is but one important section of the Bill. Clause 4 creates the power to set the amount of the jobseeker's allowance. The Select Committee suggested that the decision on that should be by affirmative resolution, but the amendment was not made. The Government's memorandum argues that that is in accordance with precedent under social security legislation, but that does not seem to be a convincing case for the negative resolution procedure. The affirmative resolution procedure takes more of our time and it runs against the spirit of the times to allow that. The Jopling reforms—more timetabling of debates


and fewer late sittings—are seductive and are supposed to present us as a more modern and businesslike assembly, but our job is to scrutinise the Executive's policies and hold them to account.
The regulation-making powers under clause 16 might also have been amended here so that they would be under the affirmative procedure. This clause creates the most draconian powers for adjudication officers to impose benefit sanctions on those whom they regard as recalcitrant, who may have broken benefit rules or left employment voluntarily. The penalties can be extremely severe: officials have the power to impose disqualification from the jobseeker's allowance for up to 26 weeks. The very language of the memorandum, describing such action as "misdeeds", should alert us to the need to keep control of the use of such powers. The memorandum acknowledges that the use of regulations to prescribe periods of sanction is an innovation, which is all the more reason for Parliament to act cautiously in conferring such powers.
What we have, however, is a proposal not only that the Government should have an untrammelled power to promulgate regulations, but that those regulations should give huge discretion to employment and adjudication officers. If such powers are to be granted by Parliament at all, they should be granted only by affirmative resolution and be renewable rather than indefinite.

Ms Eagle: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech and agree with almost all of it. Does he agree that local members of the Employment Service want nothing to do with those arbitrary powers? I have the impression that they, too, feel uncomfortable with them and realise that the Bill places them in a difficult position. They want to help people in a positive way to get back to work rather than to police them, which is what those clauses suggest they should do.

Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. Decent officials will approach those powers with diffidence and wish to use their powers as constructively and benignly as they can. But I fear that, if officials are invested with ill-defined and arbitrary powers, including powers to impose severe sanctions, some may slide, almost subconsciously, into using those powers to excess. As a law-making body, it is our responsibility adequately to define the powers which servants of the state are entitled to use.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment recently spoke forcefully of
the need for the British people to take the decisions which affect their daily lives in the Parliament which they elect".
He was referring, of course, to our claims of parliamentary sovereignty against the predatory institutions of the European Union. In the same speech he suggested that the Conservative party had a unique capacity to respond to that need. If a Conservative Government introduce legislation on this model and we, as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, are so effete as to hand over law-making powers wholesale to the Executive, we abuse the institution that we profess to cherish.
There has been a vast increase in secondary legislation, particularly in the past 10 years. In the 15 years from 1970–85, an average of 2,000 statutory instruments were made each year. Since 1985, the number has risen steadily from 2,080 in that year to 3,334 in 1994.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must be hard

of hearing this afternoon. We are not here to review the number of statutory instruments that have been made. I assure him that I know better than anybody how many there have been. We are dealing with amendment No. 6 and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to it.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that you speak with feeling.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) is speaking to one of our amendments, which deals precisely with regulation and how the House should deal with it. Amendments Nos. 36(a) and 39(a) are grouped on the Order Paper with new clause 6. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling me what the amendments are about. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of recognising that I read the amendments before coming to the Chamber. I repeat my complaint: we are not here to review the total number of statutory instruments in this Parliament. I hope that that line of argument will be desisted from.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am about to move on. My hon. Friend the Whip will be pleased to know that I am about to draw my observations to a close. Amendments Nos. 36 and 39 are in this group and deal specifically with secondary legislation and the use of the affirmative or negative resolution procedure.
All secondary legislation is unamendable, and the vast majority is not even considered by the House. No wonder my right hon. Friends are against constitutional change, when our present constitution and the directions in which political energies run enable them to legislate whatever they will. We have seen a rolling back not of the frontiers of the state but of parliamentary accountability. Against that background, I tabled the Human Rights Bill, which was passed in another place. It would provide some protection for those who may be threatened by this Bill, particularly through article 4(2). However, that debate is for another day.
The Bill creates large and potentially dangerous new powers for the state, bearing particularly on those who are most defenceless: the unemployed. It behoves us as Members of Parliament to champion those who most need champions. We do it in our surgeries and we should do it here.
I find both the substance and the manner of this legislation profoundly unacceptable. Today's proceedings do not provide another opportunity to vote against the principles of the Bill but, while we secure limited improvements in the Lords amendments—we should thank the other place for them—we should reflect deeply on the progressive abdication by the House of Commons of our constitutional role of holding the Executive to account.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Last time I followed the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), I had to admit that it was a pleasure and a privilege. It is getting a bit boring because this is the second time I have followed him and again I have to say that I agree with much of what he


said. He is a lone voice—I wish that he were a chorus—on the Conservative Back Benches in trying to persuade Ministers to reconsider their legislation.
Interestingly, in the Minister's interventions, both in the hon. Gentleman's speech and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), her defence was that the Bill did nothing new but was simply enforcing existing practices and regulations. That defence was made by the noble Lord Mackay in another place and subsequently led to this new clause. Of the original clause 6, he said:
Our intention was merely to provide for a more direct route through regulations rather than through the indirect route of treating or deeming people available or not available which legislation has until now employed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 1995; Vol. 564, c. 200.]
The concern of my constituents and of many Opposition Members is that that direct route will lead to a loss of benefit, and that the purpose of the Bill is to deprive more people of their benefits. The direct route means a more rigorous application of the principles enshrined in previous legislation and regulations, the application of which has bedevilled the House, not only in this day and age, but in previous ages.
The Minister was right in one fundamental respect: there is nothing new in what is proposed. The concept of the terms "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" is not new to our legislation. It has a long and rather inglorious legislative pedigree. It started in 1921. I read with fascination, in preparing for the debate, the arguments of the 1920s—from 1921 to 1930. Arguments were made during that time which were identical to those that have worried and created queasiness in the other place.
That is why the Lords made the Government change new clause 6. They were worried about the way in which those words would be interpreted, applied and, more importantly, enforced by officials on the ground. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon argued that point very effectively.
I come from and represent a group of communities with long-standing, vivid and bitter memories of the early application of the active availability for employment and seeking work qualification for benefit. A generation of people in my constituency can remember being called before courts of referees, insurance officers and local employment committees to prove in detail the efforts that they had made to obtain work at a time when 65 per cent. of the people in those communities were out of work.
I say to the Minister, the reason why we treat the Bill with suspicion—I am not convinced by what she and other Ministers have said that the Bill and the clause are not designed to enforce much more rigorously the application of the actively seeking work regulations and so on—is that we already have a long history and memory of the experiences of a whole generation, and we are witnessing in 1995 an eery re-application of those arguments and principles to the extent that they were applied in 1925.
I have read through the earlier legislation, the debates and arguments and the application. The chairman of the court of referees for Rhymney in 1929 said, of the application of legislation very similar to that which is before us, that its task was to go into the

state of the applicant's mind".
I believe that much of the jobseeker's agreement and the questionnaires are designed to try to do exactly the same thing: they seek to discover the state of the applicant's mind and his attitude towards employment and work.
Curiously, in the 1920s and 1930s the legislation led first to mass-scale coaching by the trade union movement to help people get through those questionnaires. I wonder whether in the 1990s we shall have a curious repetition of behaviour and administrative practices that we believed had long gone.
Shall we have citizens advice bureaux and individual members of trade unions advising people how to fill in those questionnaires, how to cope with the new jobseeker's agreement and how to ensure that they are not caught out in the interrogations by the new officials in applying the new regulations, or applying the old regulations in a specific way? I have a horrible feeling that in some ways we are being dragged back to the 1920s and 1930s rather than carried into the next century in terms of legislation and regulations and their application.
I have a sneaking feeling that in part the aim of the Bill and of the provisions in the clause is similar to the aim of the legislation of the 1920s. The legislation of the 1920s was not—and I do not believe that the Bill is—designed to help people into employment, to take a positive view. I believe that behind it is a cost-cutting exercise, aimed at reducing the number of those able to claim benefit. It has been accompanied by a savage cut in unemployment benefit, anyway. They have gone hand in hand.
The House may be interested to know that, curiously, the original words devised in the legislation—making it necessary to prove that one was seeking employment—were really designed to make fewer women eligible for unemployment insurance benefit. After the first world war, as a result of working in munitions factories during that war, a large number of women were entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. Because the numbers were increasing, much of the legislation in the 1920s and 1930s was designed to take away from women the right to claim unemployment insurance benefit. Moreover, it succeeded and 250,000 women lost their rights as a result of that legislation.
I wonder whether there will be an eery repetition in the 1990s, at the tail end of the century, in the application of the new regulations, in the new attitude and in the new conditions of availability for work or the active seeking of employment. I wonder how the legislation will be applied to women and their rights to unemployment benefit. I wonder whether, 70 years later, we shall witness, in a new style, the attitudes and approaches that the communities that I represent still vividly remember being experienced by the generation of most of the old-age pensioners in my constituency. We therefore have every right to suspect the weasly words and the pretence that the Bill and the new clause do nothing new.
I will tell you another thing that the Bill does, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should not bring in that type of Bill at this moment, in a labour market which, in the communities that I represent, I have never known to be so disoriented and to have so many difficulties and problems.
The concept of "actively seeking employment" and the ruling out of the idea that one should seek employment suitable to one's skills or one's experience is meaningless


in the context of the community in my constituency, which has lost all its mining jobs, which has experienced a severe shrinking of the number of jobs in manufacturing, and where training opportunities have been thrown into disarray. Not only has there been destruction of apprenticeship schemes of the kind and character that made post-war Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney a skilled community, but people do not know what skills they need now.
There is a genuine question as to what kind of skills and training required to meet the needs of a local or a national economy at the end of the century. Yet apparently those are the tests that will be applied to decide whether a person will continue to be entitled to a jobseeker's allowance and whether he is meeting his requirements under his jobseeker's agreement. We do not want to be dragged back and we certainly do not want the enforced application of rules and regulations of that kind in a fluid and difficult labour market of the kind and character represented by Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon argued very effectively, to those people may well be added hundreds, if not thousands, even in my local community, of people in their mid-fifties losing their invalidity benefit, not qualifying for the new incapacity benefit and being driven back into the labour market. I would like the Minister to say when she replies whether, as I assume will be the case, a person in that category, having found that he or she does not qualify under the new incapacity benefit and loses their existing invalidity benefit, in order to gain any form of benefit at all from the age of 54 up to the age of 58 will have to write out a new jobseeker's agreement. Will he or she be expected to sign on some dotted line as to what efforts he or she—often having been out of the labour market for two to three years—has made to find work so as to be able to collect some form of benefit?
We have a right to question Ministers whether it is right to introduce that specific measure, at this moment, against the background of the labour market and against the background of the demotivated younger generation that, I am sorry to say, exists in my region. The parents of those young people were made redundant when they believed that they had secure jobs, and they feel angry and disaffected about work, jobs, employment and training. Sadly, youngsters entering the labour market in Merthyr and Rhymney feel the same.
Great changes have occurred in our community. I took the trouble to check the local vacancies at the Merthyr jobcentre. There are about 457 vacancies. The mixture of jobs available is interesting. It is certainly very different from what once would have been available in a community such as mine. I suppose that those vacancies reveal the new diverse economy that Ministers are so happy to describe.
Just over a quarter of the vacancies are for jobs in factories, engineering or fitting—the sort of well-known occupations in which the middle-aged generation in my community have experience and skills. The rest of the vacancies are for interesting jobs such as chefs, or in office work, service work and, of course, as security guards—a growing employment sector. I have already told hon. Members about the vacancy for a security job which paid £1.80 an hour and where applicants were told they had to "bring your own dog". If one did not have a suitable dog, would that be a justifiable reason for not accepting such employment?
6 pm
Such are the stupidities and the bizarre situations that the Bill and new clause throw up. We therefore have every reason to question whether the mechanistic approach taken by the Bill, and prescribed in some detail in the new clause—it will be prescribed in much more detail in the jobseeker's questionnaire—is the right way to provide jobs and opportunities for our people, who have, in many cases, been out of work for so long. I doubt that. I doubt the motives behind the Bill and I do not think that it offers a positive view about employment. I believe that it is born out of the nasty, mean-minded spirit which has characterised so much of the Government's legislation. For that reason, I shall certainly vote against the Lords amendment.

Ms Liz Lynne: It is frustrating to have to confine myself to one group of amendments, but I will do my best.
The Bill is not very different from the one which left this House: even though people in the other place tried to change it, the results are minor and I do not believe that they are enough. The Bill should be scrapped, but we cannot debate that proposition now.
The Bill attacks the unemployed and its implementation is likely to be extremely costly. The Government have not provided a proper breakdown of the figures, but have merely offered a blanket figure of the costs involved. I should like to know how much it will cost to implement the jobseeker's agreement and I should be grateful if the Minister would give that answer when she replies to the debate.
The group of amendments relate to how the expressions "availability for employment" and "actively seeking employment", are defined. In the original Bill those expressions were to be given
such meaning as may be prescribed.
I know that there should be a balance between flexibility and parliamentary control, but some issues concern the disentitlement of groups of people to social security benefit. Those issues are far too important to be consigned merely by regulation.
I know that it was pressure from the Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that persuaded the Government to change their mind on some issues and to alter clause 6 in particular. Everyone is aware of the need for flexibility in legislation. We know that it should be possible for it to adapt and that its implementation should not be subject to rigid stipulation. It is clear that the Government have departed from that precedent with clause 6. As a result, the Government's intentions have been exposed. We now know what they mean by "actively seeking employment" and "availability for employment". I do not like what they mean, but at least that meaning is now out in the open.
I should like to know how the Bill will work in practice. Many hon. Members have already said that people will be forced to take jobs for which they are not suitably qualified. Will someone who has been a labourer for a long time be forced to take a job in an office and vice versa? I am afraid that that will happen, because nothing is said about someone having the right qualifications and expertise for a job.
The changes contain some positive aspects. I am glad that the regulations governing a person's availability for employment and their active seeking of it will only be


introduced subject to affirmative resolution. I am glad that the Government have finally relented on that matter. At least that gives the House the opportunity to challenge any changes to the regulations that the Government of the day might want to introduce.
I welcome that opportunity for proper scrutiny. That is one of the few things that I can welcome, however, because the jobseeker's agreement will cause a lot of pain and frustration to a lot of people. A number of people now in receipt of unemployment benefit will not be entitled to receive the jobseeker's allowance. I greatly fear for those people.
I hope that the Government will change their mind about the Bill, but I do not believe that is likely. At least they have moved slightly on the terms of clause 6, but they have not gone far enough.

Mr. Graham: The Bill represents one of the most pathetic plans that the Government have ever come up with. When one considers how the level of unemployment has gone up in the 16 years that they have been in power, their proposals are mind-boggling. Given that length of time, one would think that the Government would have come up with something to get folk back to work.
In my constituency I have seen an enormous growth in part-time work and short-term contracts—in some cases jobs with no contracts. The Government's proposals are therefore absolutely mind-boggling.
I have no hesitation in supporting the Labour amendments to the clause, because they are sensible. If the Government had any common sense, they would follow their Prime Minister and resign from leadership of the country. I hope that a real change comes with the general election.
I have listened to many, many debates in the House; some I have enjoyed, some I did not like. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I was delighted to hear something from the Conservative Benches that showed a bit of compassion and feeling for the unemployed and for their rights to get back into the job market.
I genuinely agree with his sentiments about training. It is nonsense to make training compulsory. I remember a story I heard when I was an apprentice about service men who were captured during the war in Italy and Germany. They made sure that their work was gerry-built so that it would collapse. That story shows that people could not force other folk to build stuff which was meant to defeat them.
The Minister should think about what I am saying: one cannot force folk to take training. Those people will do what I did when I was schoolboy, when I sat in class and went asleep. I used to leave at 4 o'clock, glad to go home to get my tea. Is that what we asking the unemployed to face? Those folk should get the training they need, which will benefit the country. That training should not mean a lecturer speaking to a crowd of folk who do not want to be there.
There is no doubt that the unemployed want training and education in order to enter the job market. They will do anything to get into it. A young man came to see me recently. He had been ill and was on invalidity benefit. He told me how people from social security were now trying to drive him into work. He said that, if he was fit,

he would be working, but he said that he had been told he should be working first as a checker, or as an express driver on a motor cycle.
That is unbelievable. The folk working in social security do not know about the world they live in. Such are the folk who will try to implement the Government's policies in our constituencies—they live in cloud cuckoo land. They do not realise that certain jobs are not on offer in my constituency.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the jobseeker's agreement, skilled engineers made redundant from some major factories might be forced into taking jobs as shelf stackers or taxi drivers?

Mr. Graham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I could go on and on, but there is no doubt that in my constituency there are thousands of folk working in jobs they are not happy with. However, they are working desperately for the funds they need to give them a life.
The Government have had 16 years, and those 16 years have been abysmal for millions of people. Young folk have seen other nations such as Germany, France and Italy all doing better. They see that our kids are at the bottom of the pit in respect of education, training and opportunities. However, the Government still want the jobseeker's allowance and the jobseeker's agreement.
Listen to what they are telling folk who have been unemployed for years and, indeed, some folk who have not been unemployed for that long. It is rubbish. They say that people must write to, telephone, and visit employers every week, contact the jobcentre so many times a week, ask family, friends and people for whom they have worked before, look at the newspapers and trade papers. Claimants are expected to name the papers and specify how often they will look at them. They must register with employment agencies and contact them every week.
The Minister and the people who compiled that list must live on the moon; they certainly do not live in this world. Friends of mine who are looking for work do nearly every one of those things, but it takes money—money that the Government are not prepared to put into the hands of the unemployed—to telephone, contact folk, buy newspapers, or write letters. Have the Government made that plain to folk? Have they made such money available? Never in a million years. It is all a Treasury-driven exercise to save money. It is not to help the unemployed.
I have a challenge for the Minister. Tomorrow morning, she and I can sit down in my office with a telephone and the yellow telephone book and telephone employers. She can be a wee lassie of 18 or 19 and I will be a guy of 51. I challenge her to see how many firms will talk to us. Come on Minister—try it. We will sit down and write letters to all these folk. For fun, we will telephone my friends. The Minister may not realise that half my friends are unemployed anyway because of her Government's failure. People are expected to contact the jobcentre every week, but the jobcentres are sick and tired of telling folk that they cannot get them jobs.
Let us be honest: the Government will never do anything for the unemployed. They have been driving wages down and at the end of the day it is the taxpayers who will have to pay to keep folk living. I know a woman who works for £2 an hour in a sweet factory. Is that right? The Minister can smile all she likes—she probably enjoys


the sweeties—but that woman does not need sweets: she needs money to buy groceries, pay the rent and provide some of the comforts that we in the House have no problem in getting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke earlier about a man with a dog. They tell me that all the security guards are trying to borrow the dog to keep themselves in their jobs. However, I know that people work for £2, £1.50 or £1.69 per hour. They are also forced to work hours that God never gave man the energy for. They work 12, 14, and 16 hours a day, every day. If they do not do it, they are fired. If they go back to the dole, they are told, "Ah, no. You had a job but you chucked it because you couldn't do it. On your bike." They will get no money from the dole. I say in all sincerity that I pray for a general election.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In all sincerity, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could come back to the amendment.

Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In all sincerity, I believe that I have been speaking about the amendment all along. I have spoken about the unnecessary compulsory training. We need training that folk want to do and that will give them the energy and enthusiasm to get back into the job market. I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. We also want folk to have decent pay that will allow them to go the shops. We all enjoy walking down to the shops buying things and ensuring that we have a good quality of life. That is what life is about. Unfortunately, the Government have denied that to millions of people by their crazy economic policy.
I have kept very well to the amendment but I will finish on this note. The other day when we heard in my constituency about the changes taking place to the leadership of the Tory party, I thought that it was interesting. The question of who will be the leader of the Tory party and Prime Minister concerns our folk in the constituencies. Folk will wonder who is going to lead the Tory party. At the end of the day, that person will lead the country as Prime Minister until the next general election.
A woman on the plane today asked me why the Government cannot have a general election to settle the issue and ensure that the unemployed have their rights—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Rachel Squire: As always, it is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). There have been many first-class speeches on both sides of the House. I realise that the time available to speak on these amendments is limited.
I, too, want to touch on how clause 6 is about giving the unemployed a blunt ultimatum to accept any job, however low paid, or come off benefit and become destitute. The amendments, clause 6 and the Bill as a whole will mean that people will not only have to prove, according to whatever conditions the Government decide on, that they are actively seeking employment but that they have to sign an agreement. If they do not comply with whatever the Minister and the Government determine, they will be removed from benefit.
The occasional comments of Ministers during the debate have been to the effect that people have no need to worry if they are genuinely seeking work. The reality is that the jobs are not there for people to find; people cannot find a decent income and life style for themselves and their families. The Government have been constantly determined to fiddle the way the unemployment figures are calculated so as to be able to claim there has been a reduction in unemployment because of their policies. The method of calculation has changed 27 times since 1979.
Another point, Mr. Deputy Chairman, is that money is being used not to create genuine jobs for people to find but to subsidise the ever lower wages being paid by many employers out there in the marketplace. It is reckoned by the Inland Revenue that in 1994, taxpayers topped up low wages with £2.4 billion of benefits. I am sure that Opposition Members would rather see that money being used to provide decently paid jobs. The Government are taking us back to the days of the workhouse and workfare. We now have the biggest gap between the highest and lowest paid than at any time since 1886. I only wish that we could confine the Government and the Bill to a museum or, perhaps even more appropriately, a chamber of horrors.
I was going to cite some examples of low pay in my constituency where people are already being offered £1.50 an hour and are expected to support a family on that. I clearly do not have the time for that, Mr. Deputy Chairman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This afternoon, I am Mr. Deputy Speaker. On other occasions I am the Chairman, but never Mr. Deputy Chairman.

Ms Squire: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have run out of time, so I conclude by quoting J. K. Galbraith's comment that the conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor but they never urge that character-building value on themselves. We have no doubt that that reflects the Government's attitude towards the unemployed. The only people on whom I wish privation are the Conservatives, with the exception of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who made an excellent speech.

Miss Widdecombe: The way in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) concluded her speech by wishing Conservative Members ill characterises Labour's debate, if one can dignify the Opposition's contributions as "debate".
During our debate on this group of amendments, we heard no welcome from the Opposition for how we responded to their concerns by redrawing clause 6 or defining in broad terms the phrases "availability" and "actively seeking". Instead, they raised old canard after old canard about the Bill in general. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not wish me to be led down their tempting path of debating the Bill as a whole, but I hope that you will allow me to respond to some of the specific points that they raised.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) told us that he went to sleep in class—I think that he has been asleep ever since, and certainly through all our debates on the Bill. Almost every issue he raised had already been covered. He said that the Government had done nothing to help the unemployed,


but omitted to mention workstart, worktrial, job clubs and the 1.5 million opportunities, and even omitted the measures included in the Bill.

Mr. Graham: The Minister has not mentioned remotivation. How can the Government remotivate folk when they cannot even motivate themselves?

Miss Widdecombe: All that I can say to an Opposition who have been jobseeking for 21 years without success, who have endured the sanctions of the electorate time after time, who are well past their permitted period and who have already rolled higgledy-piggledy down the slope that we allow after the permitted period, is that we need no lessons on motivation from them.
The Opposition have consistently suggested that the Bill introduces new measures. They suggested that we have introduced a measure under which there will be no floor in the rates of pay that people must accept, but they consistently overlooked the fact that that is already the case. As ever, they have tried to deceive the electorate—although they have not succeeded in deceiving the House—into believing that the Bill introduces new draconian measures which will be applied unreasonably. We have heard myth after myth and consistent claims that new measures are being introduced in the Bill whereas they have, in fact, been a feature of employment law for years and have not resulted in the horrors suggested by the Opposition.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I have no time, and that is entirely due to the verbosity of members of the Opposition Front Bench and the excessive eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Had I more time, I should be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman and to demolish whatever nonsense he was about to put before me.
The Bill is the epitome of tailoring for unemployed people. It will meet each individual's needs and will allow restrictions and special circumstances to be taken into account in a way that the Opposition should welcome. The Opposition's amendments can be summed up in one simple phrase: spend, spend, spend. They want to let people spend as long as they like on benefit while specifying unrealistic rates of pay and unrealistic job requirements. That is a summary of the Opposition's suggestions. Almost every amendment that they tabled in Committee came with a huge bill. We shall make certain that the electorate understand that.
I recommend to the House that it firmly reject the amendments. In doing so, it will reaffirm its confidence in the Bill and, at the same time, its complete contempt for the Opposition's ineffectiveness.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister spoke about the quality of debate, but I have never heard such a rant. Is there a doctor in the House? I know that she is in a difficult position deciding which John to support, but the Bill is not about keeping the Prime Minister in his job or replacing him. It should have been about measures to increase employment opportunities, to take millions of people off the dole and to do something about fairness at work for the 1.3 million who are earning £2.50 an hour

or less. It should have been about putting money back into training instead of cutting the training budget. Because the Bill does none of those things, we shall vote against the Government. Let us hope that this will see the beginning of the end for this corrupt, sleazy and out-of-date Government.
Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 254.

Division No. 176]
[6.27 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Dobson, Frank


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, Andrew F
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foulkes, George


Betts, Clive
Fraser, John


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Boateng, Paul
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hain, Peter


Chidgey, David
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Church, Judith
Harvey, Nick


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coffey, Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dafis, Cynog
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jowell, Tessa






Keen, Alan
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prescott Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Kirkwood, Archy
Purchase, Ken


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAllion, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


Maclennan, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Short, Clare


Madden, Max
Simpson, Alan


Maddock, Diana
Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Spellar, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Timms, Stephen


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred



Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Touhig, Don


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, Bill
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mrs. Barbara Roche.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Booth, Hartley


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arbuthnot, James
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bright, Sir Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carrington, Matthew





Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clappison, James
Jack, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Coe, Sebastian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Congdon, David
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Conway, Derek
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Key, Robert


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Day, Stephen
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Legg, Barry


Dicks, Terry
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lightbown, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evennett, David
Madel, Sir David


Faber, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malone, Gerald


Fishburn, Dudley
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forth, Eric
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


French, Douglas
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gale, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Gallie, Phil
Mills, Iain


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gill, Christopher
Moate, Sir Roger


Gillan, Cheryl
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hague, William
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hawkins, Nick
Pawsey, James


Hawksley, Warren
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heald, Oliver
Pickles, Eric


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hendry, Charles
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Richards, Rod






Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thomason, Roy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thumham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'fy'th)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Tom
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walden, George


Shersby, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Spink, Dr Robert
Whitney, Ray


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sproat, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stem, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan
Young, Rt Hon Sir George 


Streeter, Gary



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Sykes, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 36

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 30, line 9, leave out ("by virtue of regulations under") and insert
("under regulations made by virtue of").

Mr. Roger Evans: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 47.

Mr. Evans: Amendment No. 42 and the amendments grouped with it make changes to clause 36 concerning transitional arrangements for the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. It is normal for the Government to make transitional arrangements when changes are made to the benefits system and we intend to apply that principle to people who move from unemployment benefit or income support to the new jobseeker's allowance.
This group of amendments clarifies the legislative basis for the transitional arrangements. In particular, they correct a drafting error in clause 36(2)(b), improve the clause's clarity by specifying where payments of jobseeker's allowance are made under the transitional arrangements and enable the arrangements to be tailored to reflect more closely current legislation for unemployment benefit and income support.
Amendment No. 42 is simply a drafting amendment to correct the Bill's phraseology. Amendments Nos. 43, 45 and 46 deal with the term "transitional allowance" and

explain that it is used to cover payments of jobseeker's allowance made under the transitional arrangements. That clearly identifies where the payment of jobseeker's allowance is to be made.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Presumably, the Government are deferring introduction of the jobseeker's allowance under the transitional arrangements established in part by the amendments. Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government none the less plan to introduce from next April the provision that contributory benefits should cease after six months instead of 12 months?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the transitional arrangements are partly to do with the Government's deferment of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. Under those arrangements, the Government have provided a mixture of provisions to be introduced at different times.
My hon. Friend's point is correct; but, taking the Jobseekers Bill and the Budget measures as a total package for dealing with unemployment—one must consider the positive side as well—the one-year national insurance contribution holiday for employers for every person whom they take on who has been unemployed the previous two years will be introduced in April 1996.
Those who take a job after six months of unemployment will be able to keep their housing benefit at their existing full rate for an extra four weeks. We propose that that should begin in April 1996. It is expected that almost all new claims for family credit from April 1996 will be arranged within five working days. The Opposition's suggestion that the carrot will be deferred and that the stick will be introduced at the beginning is not a fair picture of the overall balance of the transitional arrangements.

Mr. Bradley: We know that the Government intend to reduce the payment of contributory benefit from 12 to six months. Why will they not defer that decision until the real carrot, in the Government's terms, of the back-to-work bonus is introduced in October 1996? If there is to be a reduction in benefit, surely the compensating back-to-work bonus should start at the same time.

Mr. Evans: Again, the hon. Gentleman is looking at only part of the picture. We take the view that it is important to introduce these measures as best we can in the way shown.
I intended, before I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), to explain the individual amendments. Amendment No. 47 provides that, where a person meets the conditions for contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, any payment under the transitional arrangements shall be a contribution-based transitional allowance. The House will note that amendment No. 43 includes a new provision that would state that the "transitional allowance" shall be of such kind as
may be determined in accordance with the regulations".
That is important, because, together with amendment No. 44, there is a provision for the transitional process to be tailored to take account of the variation in the operational arrangements for JSA and for the transitional regulations to reflect more closely the current structure of unemployment benefit and income support.
The importance of the proposals is to introduce a large-scale change to social security provision requiring the development and installation of large computer systems in such a way as to ensure that the system works effectively. We have concluded that it would be prudent to examine the change carefully to ensure that JSA can be brought in where it can be effective, and delivered properly, and that the transitional arrangements can be properly tailored to cover the intervening period.

Mr. McCartney: I have a genuine technical question. I wish to apologise in advance if I get things wrong. One area of transitional change is the move from 21 hours to 16 for those who are studying under JSA. What is the position? When will the 16-hour rule come into operation? Will it take effect on 7 October 1996 or will implementation be further delayed?

Mr. Evans: I understand that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is October 1996.

Miss Widdecombe: I did say so.

Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, she made that clear earlier.
The purpose—

Mr. McCartney: October 1996 is rather a wide definition. Will the 16-hour rule come into effect on 7 October, the vesting day for the other changes? That is all that I am asking. Will it be 7 October or later?

Mr. Evans: Perhaps I did not appreciate the precise nature of the hon. Gentleman's question. I apologise. The answer is yes: the 16-hour rule will come into operation on 7 October.
I shall continue to develop my explanation of the powers relating to transitional regulations that we intend to operate. To ease the burden of implementation, we have decided that only new and repeat claims for benefit will be paid by the new JSA payments computer system from October 1996. Unemployed people receiving unemployed benefit and income support at the point of change will continue to be paid under the national unemployment benefit system, known as NUBS2, and the income support computer system.
There will later be phased transference to the JSA system. That will mean that those who remain on the current payments system will receive benefit under many of the current rules relating to unemployment benefit and income support, which will advantage many claimants; for example, part-time workers in receipt of contributory benefit for the transitional period will be subject to more generous earnings rules than those that are applicable to the majority of JSA claimants.
The Government have kept the major project that I have outlined under close scrutiny. In line with our announced intentions—

Mr. Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has said that new and repeat claims will go on to the computer immediately. He has said also that other

claimants will be phased into the system. Does that mean that claimants who had been within the income support system for some years would suddenly be moved into a less advantageous position? For a period, would some claimants be within a better regime than others, in a rather piecemeal way? If that is the position, why is there to be phasing? Will it be done for practical reasons? Is it a matter of convenience? What are the details of the practical considerations?

Mr. Evans: The simple answer is no. It is a matter of how we propose to organise the delivery of the new system when it is introduced. It is important to ensure that the administration works smoothly.

Mr. Heald: What are the practical considerations? Is it too difficult to introduce the date into the computer system within a limited time frame, or is there a more complicated reason? Are we dealing with computers and administration or with something else?

Mr. Evans: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear my interchange with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). There is a perfectly respectable constitutional problem. First, Parliament must pass legislation. That is what we are doing now while arguing about specific amendments. Until Parliament has enacted primary legislation, delegated legislation consequent upon it cannot be laid. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, it must be understood that, when it comes to writing computer software, computers are even more literal than lawyers. It is necessary that the legal system, in all its magnificence and complex detail, be spelt out so that the rules of law can be translated into simple statements that can be introduced into computer software.
When the external review took place, the Government were advised by consultants that the design of the computer software and all that goes with it should ensure that at the end of the legislative process the system would work effectively and reliably. On the basis of that expert advice, we decided to defer.

Mr. McCartney: The complexity of the computer system is said to be the reason for deferral. The Government have spent £110 million so far. Has that expenditure been coupled to penalty clauses? Delay will lead to further public expenditure.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman takes me by surprise in asking about precise contractual arrangements. He should understand that it is not merely a difficulty of drawing software in the correct fashion. The process cannot begin definitively until Parliament has done its duty and completed its work.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 53 agreed to [one with Special Entry].
6.59 pm
Sitting suspended until Seven o'clock, there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business).

PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of Westminster Bill [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Preamble

7 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10 [Preamble], at end insert
'but not of their duty to use the land for educational purposes'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 32 [Clause 2], at end insert—
 'the Order' means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991;".
No. 28, in page 6, line 47 [Clause 9], leave out Clause 9.
No. 26, in page 6, line 49, [Clause 9], at end add—

'(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2)above unless he is satisfied that—

(a) the Moxton Street land is not required for any educational purpose; or
(b) the Moxton Street land is not required for the establishment of a new county primary school but is required by the council or any other publicly funded body for another educational purpose and arrangements have been made, whether by disposal of the land or otherwise, for that educational purpose to be fulfilled.

(4) In this section—

the Moxon Street land" means the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order; and
the Order" means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.'.
No. 29, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
'(2) Within three years from the passing of this Act the council shall, on terms to be approved by the Secretary of State, dispose of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.'.
No. 30, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
'(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order.'.
No. 31, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
'(2) Within one year of the passing of this Act the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street which was transferred to the Council by the Order.'.
No. 32, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
'(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that the council has established that there is insufficient demand to justify the provision of a new country primary school at Moxon Street.'.
No. 33, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—

'(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless the council has:

(a) published the reasons for not establishing a new county primary school at Moxon Street; and
(b) consulted in relation to those reasons such persons as appear to the council to be appropriate


in the same manner as the council would be obliged to publish and consult upon the establishment, discontinuance or alternation of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.'.

No. 34, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—

'(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) Before making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall require the council to submit a scheme for the future ownership and use of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and, where that scheme is for the sale or use of the land other than for educational purposes, the Secretary of State shall direct the council to consult interested persons for the purpose of establishing that the land is not required for any educational purpose.'.

No. 35, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
'(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and the use of that land by the council for any purpose other than educational purposes shall be treated as a disposal of that land for the purposes of the Order.'.
No. 36, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
'It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two.'.

Mr. Cohen: I note that you have taken these amendments in a cluster, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They all deal with the removal of the educational aspect of the Bill. It will, perhaps, be a little tedious but, for the record and the sake of clarity, I shall explain a little of the amendments and comment on them.
Amendment No. 26 is supported by the university of Westminster. It would like the House to carry the amendment. I am happy to support the university of Westminster in that respect. Subsection 3(a) provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the Moxon street land is not required for any educational purpose. I shall explain and give documentary proof that there is an educational need for the land. I have correspondence from St. Marylebone school and a great deal of correspondence from the university of Westminster to the effect that there is an educational purpose for the land. It is wrong to extinguish the requirement to take that purpose into account. I recommend amendment No. 26 to the House.
The Secretary of State should have a role in safeguarding the educational use of the land. It is not right fcr the Government to say that they are neutral on the matter. I am not sure whether they are neutral in any case. I suspect that, when the House divides later, we will see the payroll vote of Conservative Members of Parliament come out to vote against the amendment. That does not imply neutrality; rather it implies that the Government and Conservative Members are on the side of Westminster council and against the university of Westminster.
The Secretary of State for Education has an important role to play in protecting education and giving the university of Westminster a better and a fair deal. Neutrality is not the appropriate word, when Conservative Members will come out and vote the amendment down. That will not take us anywhere. It will be seen through. The Minister should live up to his responsibility and support the university of Westminster and the educational purposes which were clearly laid down in respect of the Moxon street land.
Subsection 3(b) of amendment No. 26 provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that
the Moxon Street land is not required for the establishment of a new county primary school but is required by the council or any other publicly funded body for another educational purpose and arrangements have been made, whether by disposal of the land or otherwise, for that educational purpose to be fulfilled.
There is clearly another educational purpose for the land. The university of Westminster is crying out for land for an educational purpose. That should be properly taken into account. Amendment No. 26 is important.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry that I missed the very beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He implies that the university of Westminster does a good job and is a popular institution. An article in the press at the weekend suggested that the university awarded Mickey Mouse degrees and did not do a good job. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in putting it on record the fact that some of its courses, particularly its media studies degrees, for example, have been pioneering and extremely far-sighted, that much of its work is at the forefront of new areas of learning and that it is an extremely important institution.

Mr. Cohen: I am extremely grateful for that good intervention. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has put that observation on the record. I echo his comments about the excellent work done by the university of Westminster in several respects and with a large number of people. This central London university has many students from ethnic minority backgrounds. It helps them to obtain degrees and educational qualifications that are vital to them. It plays an important role for people who work in London and want to study after work. I echo the hon. Gentleman's expression of support for the university of Westminster and the excellent work that it does.
I hope that the Minister will express his support for the university. I am sure that he will, but it is not enough for him just to say that and to claim to be neutral on the matter while other Conservative Members come to vote and kick it in the teeth. I hope that the Minister will pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), give credit to the university of Westminster and do something about it by supporting the amendment.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: May I help my hon. Friend on this point? The amendment would effectively give the university of Westminster some rights over the possible purchase, leasehold or use of the site at some future date. One good reason for accepting the amendment is that the university has a large proportion of ethnic minority students. Some 40 per cent. of its students come from ethnic minority backgrounds. That is one of the highest proportions in Britain. Given all the problems of inner London, and the fact that ethnic minority students are disadvantaged in getting to university, that is one very special reason for accepting the amendment.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intervention reminds me of a recent letter that I received from the GMB trade union. It stated that almost 60 per cent. of London's black youths are unemployed. The United States Secretary of State for Employment, Robert Reid, said at a meeting that for young people there were upward and downward escalators and that the upward one was for those with qualifications.
I reject the allegation that the qualifications gained at the university of Westminster are Mickey Mouse qualifications, because they have to be worked for and earned. By granting qualifications, the university puts ethnic minority youth on the upward escalator and gives them a chance to make something of their lives. That is good for Britain, because disaffection among ethnic minority youth can lead to alienation and riots such as occurred in Bradford. Education is a way out of that, and that adds to the importance of the work that is carried out by the university of Westminster and other universities. That university is at the forefront of educating ethnic minorities.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend is setting out some of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing Westminster university to consolidate and to expand in central London. Some 60 per cent. of its students are part-time, and many of them work in central London during the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people could not engage in part-time education at the university if they lived in the suburbs? It is vital to maintain city centre education, not just for city centre dwellers but for those who work in inner London. That unique feature must be taken into account.

Mr. Cohen: That is an excellent intervention. It is crucial that people be able to study part time in central London. I studied part-time and recently obtained a master's degree. I studied in the first two years of this Parliament, not at the university of Westminster but at Birkbeck college, which also does excellent work. Such opportunities are vital for people who, like me, work during the day and, as in my case, sometimes have to return to work at night. Excellent courses are available in London and people should be able to use them. The Government are making people work longer and harder and they need opportunities to reach the upward escalator. The university of Westminster gives all sorts of people, including ethnic minorities, a chance to improve themselves.
I neglected to mention the location of Moxon street. It is between Marylebone and Baker street and it is currently used as a car park. It is a perfect site for the university of London to build facilities. Later, I shall go into the detail of its background for educational purposes. It is quite wrong of Westminster council to try to renege on its commitment by way of a clause at the end of a Bill about sex shops. That is an attempt to sneak a measure through the House.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke about part-time students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) says that it would be a good idea to let Westminster university have access to the site to help such students. I do not wish to appear to be a statistician, but I can tell the House that there are 10,300 part-time students and 9,000 full-time students at the university. We are debating the purchase of the land and the expansion of the university, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that 16,000 people at that university are pursuing mid-career courses and that the university is anxious to increase their number.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting those figures on the record. They show the work that the university is doing and how it can make the best use of the site. Its proposal for the site is certainly better than that of the council, which wants to enter deals with property speculators and land dealers and, perhaps, put a


supermarket on the land. It would be far better to use the land to teach part-time and full-time students. On the criterion of the best use of the land, the university wins hands down over Waitrose or Tesco or whoever else the council is trying to put on the site and make a profit from in the process.

Mr. Rooker: Every hon. Member will have received a statement on behalf of the Bill's promoters. It should have been received today or on Friday, after the debate had been announced. The final paragraph, paragraph 11, is about clause 9 and it does not mention what Westminster city council plans to do with the site. My hon. Friend spoke about commercial or supermarket use, but that is not mentioned in the statement. Perhaps an hon. Member who speaks for the promoters could say whether they have already fixed things so that, when the Bill is passed, they will know what to do. If that is the case, they are being less than frank in their brief to hon. Members.

Mr. Cohen: I think that the council has sought to enter a deal with Howard de Walden Estates, a big property owner and developer in the area. I shall deal with its role and how it is holding the council and the House to ransom. It has some access to the land and is trying to get a deal. It has distributed a newsletter to local residents, in which it states, "It's Waitrose" and that the deal for a supermarket has already been struck. That says something about how Westminster council operates. I have not yet come to the homes-for-votes scandal and all that history—I shall keep away from that for the time being. The newsletter shows how Westminster can enter such a cosy deal because, in it, the developers say that Waitrose has been chosen.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend introduces matters that I did not know about—Howard de Walden Estates and Waitrose—and says that a deal has possibly been struck. He also mentioned Tesco. Would there not be a conflict of interest over Tesco, in that Lady Porter is heavily related to Tesco and would have an interest which would cause some sort of public eruption? Even in the case of Westminster council, there would be a real problem.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would not be surprising if Westminster council or Howard de Walden Estates shifted from Waitrose to Tesco in due course if it was thought that that would result in a better profit. My hon. Friend is right. Lady Shirley Porter, the former .inster council, is currently up under an adverse report from the district auditor for abuse of her role in the homes-for-votes scandal. My memory goes back further than that, to when she sold—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cohen: —council homes to hon. Members for 15p.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the occupant of the Chair says, "Order," he expects the hon. Member to resume his seat and not to continue his speech. I do not think that detailed references to any member of Westminster city council are appropriate to the amendments before us.

Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate for me just to point out that I met

representatives of Tesco because it has opened a store in my constituency, which I welcome, that they played down the Lady Shirley Porter role and that they said that she was a minority shareholder in Tesco? They were keen to distance themselves. I do not want to upset Tesco.
In a way, that is a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), but I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try not to refer again to members of Westminster council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) talked about the promoters' statement. I have not really made progress with my speech in relation to referring to the amendments, but it would he appropriate at this point just to refer to the statement issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I want to refer only to a couple of points.
In paragraph 9, they state:
The Moxon Street site was originally acquired by the Greater London Council in 1966 under slum clearance powers. At that time it is understood that the site was to be appropriated to education use".
That is the admission from the promoters that, ever since it was bought and came into the control of a public authority, the land was designated for educational use. That is a crucial statement. They use the words "education use." I make that point because Westminster council is saying that the land was actually designated and given to it for a primary school and that there is no need for a primary school, so it can get out of that commitment, but we have it on the record, in the promoters' own statement, that the land was bought and appropriated for education use.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): indicated dissent.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister is shaking his head, but it is in the promoters' own statement and he should take that seriously. The statement talks about not just a primary school, but education use. That is why Westminster council has the land. It got it free of charge for education use. It now wants to get out of that commitment by using a clause at the back of a sex shops Bill and to sell the land at open market development rates, make a big profit out of it, and put in a supermarket and some luxury homes. That smacks of the homes-for-votes scandal, in which the council was accused of gerrymandering.
The land was given for education use. It is in the promoters' own statement. That is a vital point. Out of the promoters' own mouth comes the admission that the land was for educational use, and the House should keep it for educational use, especially as the need for such a use by the university of Westminster clearly exists.

Mr. Sedgemore: I want to try to act as a mediator between the Minister and my hon. Friend, who said that in, I think, 1966, the land was designated for education use, which is correct. The Minister appeared to be shaking his head in relation to the point that it was designated for education use. I understand that, in 1991, there was a property transfer order and the Secretary of State for Education satisfied himself, or herself, that the site was needed for a primary school. Of course, if it had not been needed for a primary school, the Secretary of State might have deemed that it should be used for general education purposes. That is where the problem between the two sides arises.

Mr. Cohen: I take that point. Westminster council is clutching at straws, pretending that the land was


designated only for a primary school and that it does not need one now. It wants to sell the land off on the open market and make a big profit out of it. The reality is, however, that, since it came into public ownership, the land has always been designated for educational use. While the need for it to be used for educational use exists, that commitment should not be snuffed out.
I was extremely disturbed to see the Minister shake his head. It made me think that some cosy deal had been done between the Department for Education and Westminster council. When he makes his speech, the Minister might say that he is neutral, yet it is proposed that the education use mentioned in the promoters' statement should be snuffed out.
In paragraph 11 of their statement, the promoters state:
Amendments have been tabled to clause 9.
Those are the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members. The statement continues:
The City Council is glad of the opportunity for open discussion about the future of the Moxon Street site".
The university of Westminster has told me that, basically, it was listened to politely and ignored. The council has not been that keen to have open discussion about the future of the Moxon street site. The council's planning brief plays down the educational aspects of the argument. I therefore dispute that part of the promoters' statement.
The statement continues:
The City Council is glad of the opportunity for open discussion about the future of the Moxon Street site, for which there may in due course be competing proposals. It respectfully submits that it would be premature to prejudge these proposals at the present stage.
Those are weasel words because the council is prejudging the issue. That is what clause 9 is all about: prejudging the issue, getting the House to make the change, and getting rid of the educational purpose so that the council can sell the land off to developers. If the council was not prejudging the issue, it would have had full consultation and full discussions with the university of Westminster and all others who are interested before sticking that clause at the bottom of a sex shops Bill and trying to get out of its commitment.
I know that I am not allowed to use the word "lie" about hon. Members, but that statement comes as close as it is possible to come to a lie. Westminster council is prejudging the issue and forcing a Bill with this clause through because it wants to get out of its commitment to use the land for educational use.
Once the council has done that, it will tell anyone who protests and the university of Westminster, which says that we should have a better deal, "Sorry, the proposal has been through Parliament, so don't come and talk to us now. You had your chance. It has been through Parliament and that's it. We got a majority because this neutral Government got their payroll vote out and marched them all through to support Westminster council." That would be prejudging the issue with a vengeance

Mr. Sedgemore: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fundamental and important point that he is making is that whereas the Bill's promoters argue that we can discuss later the use of this land and that we should not try to constrict the clause by accepting any amendments, if the Bill and clause 9 go through as they stand, Westminster council would be obliged by law to get the full market

value for the land? It would not even have the option of selling the land, because the district auditor and district valuers would be interested.
Unless the clause is constricted now, there is no chance that any educational establishment, whether Westminster university or any other, could conceivably buy the land because the market value for educational use is considerably below that for commercial use by, for example, Waitrose or for residential development.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point. It shows that the whole issue is being prejudged by pushing the Bill through the House in this way. Once the clause is accepted, Westminster council will say that it is obliged under the law of the land to sell the site to the highest bidder. It is no wonder that the property developer put out a leaflet saying that that would be Waitrose. The council thinks that this House can be easily rolled over, and that what happens after that is inevitable.
The promoters' statement says:
What is desirable is that the way forward should be worked out in discussion with the interested parties, for the benefit of the area and the community. There is no dispute, so far as the Council is aware, that the obligation to establish a primary school should be removed, and the Promoters therefore submit that clause 9 should be allowed to proceed without amendment. 
There certainly is a dispute about educational use, as Westminster university has made clear.
On the point about discussion with interested parties, all that the council has done in respect of Westminster university is deal with the matter through a few junior officers. The council has not taken the argument seriously; it has not held discussions in a serious manner. The promoters' statement verges on the scurrilous. I am worried that the House might make a decision on the basis of a statement that is as near as it can be to a lie.
I have strayed a little, but I wanted to explain the background to the amendments. I have already explained amendment No. 26, which is supported by Westminster university.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend has rightly found cause for criticism of the promoters' statement. Being a modest person, I might use less strong words than my hon. Friend. I would describe the statement as disingenuous rather than scurrilous.
Does not paragraph 10 raise a question about integrity? It claims that pupil numbers in the Moxon street area have fallen, and that there are already 31 schools providing primary education. It states:
In the event that clause 9 of the Bill were not enacted the City Council would remain under its statutory duty to build and establish a new primary school".
That is essentially a primary school that the council does not want, and which the promoters claim would cost about £3 million.
Of course it would be silly to build a primary school that is not needed at a cost of £3 million. However, the promoters must be aware of the amendments, which have been on the Order Paper for some time, under which the council would not have a duty to build a primary school. If it proved that the £3 million would be wasted


expenditure, it would be under a duty to use the site for educational purposes, such as for the Westminster university or even for a nursery school.

Mr. Cohen: Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He was right to use the word "disingenuous" about the promoters' statement. He is better with language than I am. He was also right to point out that the amendments have been tabled for some time. They encompass what was understood to be the position when the transfer—free of charge—originally took place: that the land would he used for educational purposes.
If the Minister is properly looking after his brief to promote education, he should accept that the land should be used for educational purposes. He should accept the amendment, which is backed by Westminster university. It would enable the university to use the land, and it would not cost £3 million. The promoters' statement is ridiculous. The university has ideas for putting nursery provision on the site to help students with children. That is an important element, and it should be welcomed.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend has mentioned the very point that I wanted to raise. The promoters' statement refers to a cost of £3 million. Will the Minister give examples of one-form-entry primary schools—seven classrooms, hall, toilet block and head teacher's office—that have cost £3 million to build? That sum does not include the cost of the land. It is double the rate of building costs for primary schools in Birmingham, and I do not believe that the costs in London would be that great, either. I hope that the Minister will give us examples.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend highlights the dubious nature of the promoters' statement. It is an untrustworthy document, and it should not form the basis of a decision to extinguish educational use on such an important site.
As I said, the amendment is supported by Westminster university, and I hope that the Minister and the House will agree to it. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will comment on it fully, and not use weasel words about the difference between a primary school and educational use. He should not say, "I can't do anything about it, so I wash my hands of it." The land should be used for educational purposes. If the Minister wants to fulfil his duties, he should accept the amendment. I hope that he will not say, "I am neutral, and it is nothing to do with me."
Another important amendment is No. 36, which states:
It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two.
I am the leading signatory to the amendment, which is also supported by every member of the London Labour group of Members of Parliament. After the next election, that group will have many more members, while the Conservative group will have fewer.
The amendment reflects the position of the Labour opposition on Westminster council. It is a sensible opposition, which is more than can be said about the councillors who have ruled the council—as the evidence clearly shows. The Labour opposition believe that the site should be used for educational purposes, for social housing or for a mixture of the two. The social housing element would be affordable housing, unlike the yuppie homes-for-votes housing that the council envisages producing a huge profit.
I do not think that this amendment is incompatible with the amendment that relates to the university of Westminster, and I will be happy if either of the options are taken. I would prefer the site to be used for educational purposes by the university, hut there may he some scope for affordable social housing connected with the university on this land.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend knows that I am the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. The university of Westminster has supplied hundreds of students with brand new housing association homes at the bottom of Pitfield street and Coronet street. Would the term "social housing" in the amendment include student accommodation such as the university provides on that site? If such housing were of the same quality as that which the university has opened in Hackney within the past few months, it would be superb for the students. Their accommodation would also be nearer to where they are taught.

Mr. Cohen: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intervention shows that the university deserves more from this House and from the Minister than mere words of praise—it deserves practical support. The social mix envisaged by the amendment would include such accommodation, and would be of great benefit to students.
I stress that the social housing would be affordable, and that is the difference between the amendment supported by all the London Labour Members of Parliament and by the honourable opposition on Westminster council, and the amendment proposed by the ruling group on Westminster council. I will not say that that group is corrupt, as you would pull me up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall pull back from saying that, and we must see what the district auditor says in the report on the homes-for-votes scandal.
The ruling group on Westminster council wants to deal with Waitrose, Tesco and other supermarkets, and with Howard de Walden Estates, so that those involved can make a bloody great profit—[Interruption.] I am sorry; a huge profit. My cockney origins are the getting better of me. I am upset that education is to get a kick in the teeth from Westminster council and from a Conservative Government who pretend to be neutral.
The council's ruling group wants some housing involved in the supermarket and property development deal, but it would be highly expensive luxury housing to fit in with its plans. The district auditor has said that the ruling group's housing policy is aimed not at the people of the borough but at winning votes for the Conservative party in Westminster.
I should have thought that, following that criticism, the group might have stepped back from the policy. But here we see the homes-for-votes policy continuing, because the group thinks that it can get away with tagging this measure on to the end of a sex shops Bill. That is a scandal, especially when the measure is compared with what would be a proper use of the site for educational purposes.
7.45 pm
There are a number of other amendments, but, to save the House some time, I shall summarise them. The best way I can do that is to read the notes on the amendments sent to Members of this House by Dyson Bell Martin, the parliamentary agents for the university of Westminster.


The amendments are described as Nos. 1 to 8 in the notes, which does not reflect the numbering on the amendment paper. That does not matter, and I shall read what the agents say about the amendments.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should make his own speech.

Mr. Cohen: I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are various amendments, one of which—

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I used to be a civil servant and a private secretary to a Minister. We used to write notes in considerably more detail than those to which my hon. Friend was about to refer, and the Minister used to stand up at the Dispatch Box and read them out every time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I was not in the Chair. [Laughter.]

Mr. Cohen: Well done, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I shall summarise the amendments in my own way, although I was trying to save the House some time. Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete the clause whereby the council gets out of its commitment to use the land for educational purposes, and would stop the council using that escape route. The amendment would also mean that the land would then have to be used for educational purposes, and Westminster council would have to think again and come forward with new plans.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is not tacking a completely anomalous clause on to private business one of the worst features of such legislation?

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. He raises another point which I intended to deal with later, but which I shall gladly deal with now.
We are debating a Bill which deals with sex shops, and which consists of several detailed pages—eight clauses, none of which is short—concerning sex shops. However, tucked away at the end of the Bill is part III, consisting of three lines which seek to remove the duty to establish a new school. The clause states:
Notwithstanding the matters recited in paragraph (5) to (7) of the Preamble to this Act, it shall not be the duty of the council to establish a new county primary school at Moxon street in the city.
Tribute has been paid on the Floor to the higher education role of the university, and the Government and the council should be helping the university. It is not right that this matter should be dealt with in a Bill concerning sex shops. That is scandalous, and shows scant regard for this House and for education in Westminster or anywhere else. I understand that that can be done under the procedures of this House, but it is not right. It makes a mockery of the House. Although the issue of sex shops is important, it should be dealt with by legislation that relates only to sex shops.
The educational aspects—the role of the university of Westminster and what, in planning terms, the land should be used for—should not be tagged on to the Bill. The fact that they are makes a mockery of the procedures of the House, even though it is probably okay—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a series of amendments which have been grouped

together. The hon. Gentleman is now rehearsing matters that would have been more suitable for the Second Reading debate. We have got beyond that.

Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the House is extremely busy; there are always an enormous number of issues before the House. It is often not possible to look at private Bills as they proceed through the House, especially as this private Bill was about sex shops and then suddenly had a clause about education tagged on to it—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman now has the opportunity to talk about the educational features. I suggest that, if he wishes to do so, he does so now.

Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been doing so for 50 minutes, and I am happy to continue to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) asked whether it was right procedurally to discuss education under this Bill. The procedure is right, as you have confirmed, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that it is proper to deal with the matter in this way. The House has been treated extremely badly—almost contemptuously.
I come now to the important point that you made, Madam Deputy Speaker, about Second Reading. It was—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to make the point. He must return to the amendments.

Mr. Cohen: All I wanted to say was that there was no opportunity to raise the education aspects on Second Reading, because hon. Members had not spotted clause 9 at that time. Indeed, the university of Westminster thought that it would get a fair hearing from Westminster city council, so it did not object or bring hon. Members' attention to the matter at that stage. That was not unreasonable. The university thought that Westminster city council was acting in good faith.
However, it has now found that Westminster council was not acting in good faith. It was not possible, because of the circumstances, for these issues to be raised on Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish that it had been. I would have raised the issues myself if I had known that the matter would be dealt with in this way. I would have raised the issues on Second Reading, and I would have done my best to block the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now engaging in repetition. He is apparently anxious to talk about educational features. I suggest that he does so.

Mr. Cohen: I have made my point, and I will not repeat it.
The other amendments need a little explanation. Amendment No. 29 would insert at the end the words:
Within three years from the passing of this Act the council shall, on terms to be approved by the Secretary of State, dispose of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.
That would ensure that the Secretary of State for Education had a role. In addition, as far as I can tell from the information from the parliamentary agent, Dyson Bell Martin and Co., within three years of the Bill being


enacted, and with the sale being approved by the Secretary of State, the council would be prevented from carrying out a site swap under which it could transfer an existing council function to Moxon street, and then sell the site that was thus released.
Amendment No. 29 is important because we never know what Westminster council will get up to next. It has forfeited the right to have its measures go through unopposed, and it has forfeited the right to be treated as an honest dealer. The district auditor has, in his provisional findings, cast doubt on the council's probity.
The council might well carry out a site swap. It might put an existing council function on to the Moxon street land, and then sell off the land released in a deal with Howard de Walden Estates Ltd. or with some other property dealer. It might then make a profit on land that was given to it free of charge for educational purposes. Amendment No. 29 is important, because it would prevent the council from doing such a deal.
Amendment. No. 30 would insert at the end the words:
This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order.
Again, that emphasises that the land should be used for educational purposes.
Amendment No. 30 also draws attention to how the land came into the ownership of Westminster city council. It was Greater London council land; the Government wound up the GLC. The land was then transferred to the Inner London education authority; the Government wound up ILEA. The land then went to the London residuary body, which transferred it to Westminster council, free of charge, for educational purposes.
Westminster council now wants to get out of that deal. The important point here is that, when the LRB, which had all the proceeds of the GLC and ILEA, was wound up, the money was distributed to all the London boroughs, each of which got a fair share.

Mr. Robin Squire: Of course.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister says, "Of course." It was right that each borough got a fair share. However, the land had been given free to Westminster council by the LRB on the condition that it had to have an educational use. Londoners would not quibble with that, and they would not say that they wanted their handouts. The use of the land for educational purposes was a fair, local use.
Two years after the free gift of land for educational use, Westminster council comes along and says, "We are going to get out of the educational provision, sell the land to a property speculator and make a bloody"—sorry about my language, Madam Deputy Speaker—"a bloomin' great killing." The land came from the LRB, which distributed earlier proceeds across London. The money from property speculation, therefore, is not the money of Westminster council. It is the money of Londoners. It is the money of the people of Hackney—the poorest borough in the country. Hackney residents deserve their share of the money, and Westminster should not use the money of Londoners.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I can abbreviate this passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Were the property to be disposed of by Westminster city council and funds to be realised from

it, the money would be distributed to the other boroughs. That is the procedure that would apply to any other similar asset.

Mr. Cohen: I am interested in that important comment; I do not doubt the veracity of the words of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). However, I should like to know the mechanism for such a procedure. The LRB has been wound up; the distribution of the GLC and ILEA proceeds has taken place.
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Westminster council will make a gift of the money to the other 32 London boroughs, and that the amount received will be publicly accountable? That is an interesting statement by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I want to know the mechanism for that distribution. As I said, the LRB has been wound up.

Mr. Sedgemore: No doubt the Minister will describe the legal mechanism by which the money from the land can be transferred, if there is a large profit. No doubt the Minister will tell us the legal position later.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the equitable distribution of the money, and the fact that Hackney is the poorest borough in the United Kingdom—a tag that we do not like but which, judging by the indices of poverty published by the Department of the Environment, appears to be correct. People in Hackney are desperately keen on education.
Rather than a small, or even a large, sum of money being shared around, the London borough of Hackney, like all the other inner London boroughs, can only benefit from the land being kept in educational use. It would benefit particularly if the university of Westminster used it.

8 pm

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that statement. We have mentioned the wide range of needy students who benefit from the work of the university of Westminster. I agree that the best use for the land—far better than a Waitrose, a Tesco or luxury housing—would be for educational purposes and for the university of Westminster; then people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other London constituencies, as well as people who work in London and can pursue only part-time education, would have the chance to get on the upward escalator and improve their lives. That is the best way forward and the best use for the land, rather than distributing the money.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for pointing that out and I hope that the Minister will say more about how the money will be distributed. I hope that the Government will recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, it is best to use the land for the education of Londoners. That is what they want. They do not want a few quid to be distributed to the 32 councils; they want the land to be used for education and to improve facilities for our people. That amendment is important and it certainly generated some interest in the House.
Amendment No. 27 would insert at the end of clause 2
'the Order' means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.
It will enable a definition to he included in the interpretation section, which should contain some definitions of the educational aspect, as all the other


definitions in the clause concern sex shops. By referring to the London residuary body transfer, the amendment shows that it took place for educational purposes. That should be included in the interpretation.
Amendment No. 31 adds the following:
Within one year of the passing of this Act the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street which was transferred to the Council by the Order"—
the order to which I just referred. The key words are that the land should go
without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State".
I do not see why the Secretary of State cannot accept that amendment. Why does she persist in this so-called neutrality? The amendment makes it crystal clear. One is either for the land being used for educational purposes—the amendment gives the Secretary of State that power and role—or one does not accept this or any of the other amendments and goes with the clause that snuffs out the educational requirement. It is as simple as that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, the panoply of the law would then come into play and Westminster would have to sell the land off to the highest bidder—the property speculator.
The Under-Secretary of State for Schools cannot get away with that neutrality. The amendment beards him in his den. He is either for the land being used for educational purposes or for it going to speculators and to the highest bidder—to Waitrose or whatever. This professed neutrality will not do. If the hon. Gentleman talks about neutrality, perhaps he will mention that amendment, which offers a straight choice. If he says that he will not do anything to protect the educational use of the land but that he is neutral, he will have to explain his position.
When the LRB transferred the land to Westminster, it intended it to be given to an educational body. That was also the intention of the Inner London education authority—the original owners—and of the Greater London council after 1966. The House should fulfil that intention.
Amendment No. 26 states:
(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that
the council has established that there is insufficient demand to justify the provision of
a new county primary school
at Moxon street. The amendment would prevent the council from being relieved of the obligation to build a school until the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was not required.
In their disingenuous statement, the promoters said that there was no case for a primary school, but we have not seen any proper figures or information resulting from detailed consultation. We should not just take Westminster council's word in that respect.
Amendment No. 33 adds the words:
(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless the council has:


(a) published the reasons for not establishing a new country primary school at Moxon Street; and
(b) consulted in relation to those reasons such persons as appear to the council to be appropriate".

It would require the council to consult the university of Westminster realistically and not, as it has done until now, a few junior officers who are polite but merely say, "Wait until the legislation is enacted and then we'll talk to you." Once the legislation is enacted, they will say, "We have nothing to say to you."
The amendment continues:
in the same manner as the council would be obliged to publish and consult upon the establishment, discontinuance or alternation of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.
Because the land was transferred free of charge and was clearly always intended to be used for educational purposes, the change should not be brought about through a clause in a sex shop Bill but should be treated in exactly the same way as the discontinuance of a school—under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.
What objection can the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, or any other hon. Member, have to that amendment? It is a serious proposal. It was always intended that there should be a school there—the land was handed over free of charge for that purpose—and, if the council wants to get out of that commitment, the land should be treated as though there were a school there already. That is a reasonable proposal and the Under-Secretary of State could take it on board.
Amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 49, inserts at the end:
(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) Before making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall require the council to submit a scheme for the future ownership and use of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and, where that scheme is for the sale or use of the land other than for educational purposes, the Secretary of State shall direct the council to consult interested persons for the purpose of establishing that the land is not required for any educational purpose.
There should be proper consultation on whether the land is required for educational purposes. Westminster council is simply scared. In Baroness Thatcher's words, it is "frit" of a proper consultation because it knows that, other than the big moneyed people—Howard de Walden Estates and property developers—most people in the community, including the university of Westminster, would say that the best use of the land is for education or, as I suggested in an amendment, a bit of social housing as well. Proper consultation should take place before the House allows Westminster council to get away with what it is trying to do.
The final amendment in this cluster, No. 35, is in page 6, line 49, and adds at the end:
(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and the use of that land by the council for any purpose other than educational purposes shall be treated as a disposal of that land for the purposes of the Order.
The amendment would thus treat the Moxon street site's use for non-educational purposes as a disposal by the council and require the council to account for its value to the Secretary of State, who may require the council to make payments to other ILEA boroughs. That was the point raised by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South.
It is interesting that Dyson Bell Martin, the agents of the opponents to the Bill, the university of Westminster, have had to table an amendment saying that arrangements should be made for payment to other ILEA boroughs. Given that the agents have looked closely at the Bill and said that, if the land is to be used for non-educational purposes, an amendment is needed to say how the money will be distributed to other London boroughs, that seriously implies that no such provision exists at the moment. It is an important amendment and I should have thought that the Minister would accept it.
In the interests of clarity, I have summarised the meaning of all the amendments. I should have thought that a Minister responsible for education who was doing his job properly by protecting and enhancing education could accept at least one of those amendments. I now come to the substantive part of my speech.
In 1966, the GLC designated the land at Moxon street for educational purposes, as did the ILEA and the London residuary body. The land was given free of charge to Westminster for educational purposes but, within two years, Westminster council said that it did not need another primary school and set out to relieve itself of that commitment under current law and enter into a cosy deal with land speculators and profiteers.

Mr. Sedgemore: I have seen that Westminster changed its mind within two years of the 1991 transfer of property order. The promoter says that it changed its mind because all the figures for primary schools were hopelessly out. Has anyone explained at an earlier stage of the Bill—I have seen none—how such a mistake could be made? The figures for birth rates are fairly standardised and Westminster council must have known about its other school places. What, in such a short space of time, could have brought about such a fundamental change by Westminster council? Might the original transfer of land have been phoney? Perhaps it was not completely open and something was going on behind the scenes.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes his own point, which casts doubt over the transfer of land. There was some concern that the LRB was a quango which, like so many other quangos set up by the Government, had a Conservative in charge, and that a deal might have been done between the two Conservative leaders on the transfer of land. The LRB was not particularly friendly to Labour councils that wanted to transfer land, yet that transfer went through relatively easily and free of charge. So my hon. Friend might have a point. I do not know. I must assume that the LRB acted in good faith. ILEA certainly acted in good faith and believed that the land would be used for educational purposes and that the first in the queue was a primary school. As my hon. Friend says, the figures must have been worked out at that time, just three years ago.
The land was given free of charge because it was believed that a primary school was needed. For Westminster council now to say that those arguments and figures were spurious is extremely disturbing. As my hon. Friend says, it casts doubt on the original transfer of land, although I still prefer to believe that the LRB acted in good faith and thought that the land was needed for an important educational purpose. It was probably in ILEA's mind when

it made that transfer that, if the land was not used for a primary school, it could go to the university of Westminster. It is interesting that the promoter and Westminster council talk in their document of "educational purposes". I suspect that that is what they had in mind.

Mr. Sedgemore: I hope that my hon. Friend does not find me tedious if I ask him to help me on the same point. Paragraph 10 of the promoter's statement says:
Pupil numbers in the area of Moxon street have not risen as anticipated".
If one has studied logic, as I did at university, one would realise that that statement could have many meanings. It could mean that the birth rate was lower than anticipated, although I find that difficult to believe. It could mean that pupils in that area are being sent other schools. We hear that there are 31 schools within the area and that a school called St. Vincent's is next to that site—which makes it bizarre that such a transfer took place. It could mean that the whole of the educational planning by the local educational authority went hopelessly awry. What does that statement mean?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If Westminster council wanted to get out of its commitment, it should have justified that statement. My hon. Friend's question takes me back to the point that some sort of deal may have been done between the LRB and Westminster council. If it was not a deal, Westminster council may have been disingenuous in its original representation to the LRB for the land. Perhaps it went to the LRB and said, "Give us that land free of charge because we need it for a primary school and can produce figures to show that." The LRB, in good faith, gave the council the land on that reasoning, and now the same council has stepped down from that argument without providing those figures.
That is a serious allegation that my hon. Friend is, not making, but hinting at. It is such a serious allegation that, before the House makes any progress on that matter, we should see all the documents relating to the original transfer by the LRB of that land to Westminster. We should know what the documents said then. I am not sure whether quangos keep proper records, but I hope they do. If they do not, that would tell us a lot about quangos and that one in particular and the way in which it was run.
Let us assume that the LRB kept proper records. We should have the right to see them. We should be able to read what Westminster council said the pupil numbers would be, and to read the arguments. I hope that they would all be minuted. That should all be out in public for us to read, because the allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch makes has serious implications.

Mr. Sedgemore: For the avoidance of doubt, because it is a serious matter, I make it clear that I am not making any allegations. I am asking what I call pertinent and perhaps difficult questions, but surely it is the function of the House, when a Bill such as this comes before it, to question issues that appear to be incomprehensible.
I do not suggest that anyone has done anything improper; I merely ask questions. I think that my hon. Friend is moving towards the conclusion that something improper may have happened, but nothing is further from my mind. I am simply acting as an investigative Back-Bench Member of Parliament.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's statement of his position; it was honourable for him to make it. It is


right for Members of Parliament to ask such questions, and they deserve answers. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, I am taking the implication of what he says and turning it into an allegation, but when one deals with a council such as Westminster council it is not surprising that any person of logic—my hon. Friend referred to logic—would start to make such implications. It makes the case for full and open disclosure of what took place at the time of that transfer and of what Westminster said at that time even more relevant and worthy of answers from the Secretary of State and from Westminster council.
In considering that matter, I spoke to a couple of opposition councillors on Westminster council. I shall put before the House a couple of their comments, because I believe that they are relevant. First, I spoke to Councillor Ben Summerskill about the subject, and he told me that he thought that there possibly was a need for the school to be there; he was not sure. It is interesting in itself that he was not sure whether there was a need. That shows that Westminster council has not come clean with the figures regarding the need—but I shall not hark back to the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch made a short time ago.
Mr. Summerskill said:
What the Council is doing … the site is targeted … by Lady Porter for yuppie housing in a marginal ward, Cavendish.
That is the comment that he made to me over the telephone. He said:
they are now trying to do a deal with a supermarket.
Mr. Summerskill told me during the discussion—or perhaps I told him: I am not sure; I have only a note of our telephone conversation—that the land should be used for a school, or the university of Westminster should have the land because it is desperate for accommodation. There is a note of that conversation.
Because the university of Westminster cannot get its hands on that sort of site in Westminster, it is being forced to build on a site in Harrow. That is disgraceful treatment from the council and the Government. An argument was made earlier about part-time workers in the City of London needing that educational facility. If they work in the district around Marylebone and Baker street and want to improve themselves, why should they not go to a site in Westminster? What will it do for their educational opportunities if they have to go off to Harrow? People in Harrow may be able to take advantage of a site there, but what about those people in central London? That site should have been available for them in Westminster.
That was a good part of my conversation with Councillor Summerskill, which I have related to the House. I return to the argument that the site has been targeted, in a marginal ward, for yuppie housing. Those were Councillor Summerskill's words, and that is a serious allegation, bearing in mind the district auditor's report, which said that the council misused about £21 million in a housing policy designed for gerrymandering—homes for votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has produced a paper that shows that the spending was much more than £21 million—it was £100 million.
I see that you are becoming a bit edgy, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave that subject. However, this does cast light on the argument. There is a choice between the land being used for educational purposes—for a school or for the university of Westminster, which I believe would

be the best use—and it being used for yuppie housing. We either have social housing for students—perhaps some housing association homes which are affordable—or yuppie housing in a marginal ward. The latter smacks of things that are untoward, bearing in mind the district auditor's provisional findings about Westminster council.

Mr. Sedgemore: I do not believe there is any reason why my hon. Friend should become edgy about this matter. If there were the slightest suggestion that that was in any way related to obtaining votes—that it was some homes-for-votes scandal—it would provide the House with the strongest possible reason for rejecting clause 9. If there were the slightest suggestion that what my hon. Friend has just said will happen, it would be immoral of the House to allow the clause to pass. I am sure that even the present Government, if they thought that that was partially true or even might be true, would want to desist from allowing the clause to pass and would ask further questions about it.
Is it only a suspicion based on a feeling of a lack of trust or a feeling that Westminster council lacks integrity, or have there been any conversations about that? Are there any documents? Do we need some kind of—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on a number of occasions. I have no quarrel with that, but each intervention seems to be getting slightly longer than the previous one. I think that he will know my views that interventions should be short and sharp.

Mr. Cohen: I accept my hon. Friend's argument, and Mr. Ben Summerskill's argument about the land being targeted for that yuppie housing speaks for itself.
My hon. Friend asks whether there are any documents to show Westminster's intentions. Its planning brief refers to using the land for a supermarket and some luxury housing in a deal with speculators. There is that doubt. The shadow over that land is cast by the district auditor's report on what Westminster council was doing. There is that shadow of doubt, and it is quite a dark shadow—a dark stain, actually. It is a dark stain on Westminster council.
One would have thought that Westminster council would keep its hands clean in those circumstances, yet here we have its proposal which smacks of the supposition that the policy of homes for votes has not been abandoned by the Westminster Tories. That is a serious matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has said, if there is a hint of that homes-for-votes policy—clearly there is—the House should not agree to clause 9. It should accept one of my amendments—I do not care which one—so that the land is kept for educational purposes for the benefit of the university of Westminster. The Minister and the promoters should respond to that serious charge and come clean on how the proposal is tied up in with the homes-for-votes scandal.
I also had a word with Councillor Peter Bradley of the Westminster Labour group. He told me that the site should be designated for housing to meet the needs of local people or for the education of local people. In his view, those objectives should remain the primary uses of the land.
8.30 pm
Councillor Bradley said that the GLC site had been given to Westminster council free of charge, and that when the council took over the land from the LRB, it said that it would be used for educational purposes. Within a couple of months, however, it changed its mind. It is therefore clear that there was some action behind the scenes about that land.
Councillor Bradley also told me that Howard de Walden Estates has plans for a food store and a car park on the site. That is confirmed in the planning brief. Howard de Walden Estates does not own the site, but it controls access to it. In effect, it is holding Westminster council, the university of Westminster and the House to ransom. It is using its interest in a little bit of access land to pull the council into booting the university of Westminster in the teeth. It can then strike a deal for a food store, a car park and perhaps luxury housing.
I do not know whether the council officers got involved in the deal through naivety, or whether they decided that they had to deal with Howard de Walden Estates given its little bit of access land and power. I suspect that might be the case. They have failed to use their common sense and ask about the best use of the land. They have failed to take into account the site's history, when it was handed over free of charge for educational purposes. If those officers had considered that and asked the relevant questions, they would have realised that the land should be used for educational purposes by the university of Westminster.
I suspect that planning officers thought, "Oh dear. Howard de Walden Estates has got some access and a bit of control over the site. We'd better fall into line with everything that it wants." That may be one scenario, in which case those planning officers are not doing their job properly. The House therefore has a duty to take an overview on the best use of the land and should not allow one private property developer to hold the council to ransom.

Mr. Sedgemore: rose—

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend had better be brief, because Madame Deputy Speaker pulled him up for speaking for too long in his previous intervention.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am having some difficulty in following my hon. Friend's argument. If a school was to built on the site, access would be needed for people and vehicles. If someone is now arguing about access held by Howard de Walden Estates, either there must have been some mistake in the original planning or that is a spurious argument.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend may be right that that is a spurious argument. All I am doing is relating my telephone conversation with Councillor Peter Bradley.
Howard de Walden Estates has obviously got significant leverage in some way or other either over planning officers or the Conservative councillors because it has been given, or is in the process of being everything that it has asked for by Westminster council.
According to Councillor Bradley, the council's development brief "represents a blank cheque" to Howard de Walden Estates. I am not sure that that is a spurious argument. It is beneficial for the issue to be considered in the House because it means that it is made public. We

should know all the facts before the Bill, and specifically clause 9, is passed and extinguishes the educational use of the land.

Mr. Sedgemore: Before my hon. Friend and I get at a loggerheads over a confusion, it is clear that I am losing the power of coherent speech, because I did not suggest that my hon. Friend's argument might be spurious. I suggested that the argument of the planners might be spurious.

Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. It certainly appears that the planners have caved in and, as Councillor Bradley said, given Howard de Walden Estates a blank cheque. Westminster council owes us an explanation about that.
I sought to raise this matter during Education Question Time on 24 January. I got close to getting some information because my oral question was the next one to be asked and the Minister was briefed with the answer. Just at that moment Madam Speaker said that time was up and we moved on to Prime Minister's Questions. I had tabled a question
To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received relating to the City of Westminster Bill[Lords]; and what was her response.
In a written answer, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools said:
There has been correspondence with Westminster city council about the need for clause 9 of the Bill which would relieve the local education authority of its duty under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 to build a new school at Moxon Street. No other correspondence about this aspect of the Bill has been received."— [Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 163.]
It would be interesting to know exactly what correspondence the Minister received from Westminster city council; whether it lobbied him for support and how that influenced his attitude.
The Under-Secretary should have spoken to the university of Westminster once he had had notification of the proposal from the council. I understand that he is busy and has a big job trying to clear up the mess in education that the Government have created over the years. The Minister may laugh but class sizes are shooting up and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going very wide of the amendments under consideration. I remind him also that he is beginning to rehearse his arguments. I shall watch that carefully.

Mr. Cohen: I will try not to rehearse my arguments. I was referring to a parliamentary answer on the specific subject that was given on 24 January. The Minister claims to be neutral and that it is nothing to do with him. That amounts to a brush-off of the university of Westminster, but it does not stop Ministers, Conservative councillors and officials at the Department for Education from criticising universities such as the university of Westminster for what they claim to be their high costs. They have sometimes been referred to in inspection reports.
Those high costs are incurred because the university of Westminster has to operate from a number of diverse, small campuses. That is why it has developed plans to replace a number of those smaller sites with five large sites by the year 2000. As I have told the House already, one of those sites is going to be not in Westminster but in Harrow. The Moxon street land would be ideal for such a site.
There is a chance to solve, at least partially, the university of Westminster's problems. It is not right that the Department of Education should ignore the university while criticising it for high costs that are brought about by having diverse sites.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey of staff at Westminster which showed that one of the problems that they identified in their work at the university was the dispersal of sites? As my hon. Friend rightly said, the dispersal includes a site in Harrow. Therefore, for the very best of educational reasons, an attempt to bring an element of concentration to the university's operations would greatly assist staff morale and improve the quality of education generally.

Mr. Cohen: That is an excellent point. That point from the Labour Front Bench, which is currently the Opposition, was very ministerial. Increasingly, right across the board, statements from the Opposition sound more and more like the statements of a Government. The Government are a shambles.
My hon. Friend's remark showed that he is aware of the problems of the university of Westminster. If he were in the Department of Education, he would help the university. Its aim of improving education opportunities for Londoners is my hon. Friend's aim, too. If my hon. Friend were a Minister, even though he would be busy cleaning up the mess on education left behind by the Conservative Government, he would send an official to have a word with the university of Westminster and ask it what its problems were. He would have told the university that the Bill was before the House and that the council wanted to get out of its commitment to using the land for educational purposes and asked what it thought of the matter. That is what would have happened. It did not happen under the Government. The university of Westminster has been given the brush-off.
The Minister should have intervened. He is responsible for education and for improving education. That is his job and he should have taken that on board in this case. If he had, he would have been backing the university of Westminster.
I say that there is a proven educational need but Westminster council is trying to extinguish that commitment. It is justifiable to extinguish such a commitment to educational purposes—for which it got the land free of charge—only if there is no need for those education purposes. I submit that there is a need.
I have a letter from Dr. S. M. K. Wilmington, the chairman of the governors of the St. Marylebone school, of 64 Marylebone High street, W1M 4BA. He says:
Dear Mr. Cohen
City of Westminster
I understand that you were one of the three Members of Parliament who opposed the private Bill the city of Westminster is promoting, Clause 9 of which deals with the former county primary school in Moxon Street.
I thought accordingly that you might find it helpful to have a copy of the attached letter to Councillor Robert Davies of 22 March from one of my fellow Governors. This is the culmination of a long correspondence between ourselves and Westminster members and officers.
He encloses a copy of the letter to Councillor Robert Davies, the chairman of the planning committee at Westminster, from Robin Majdalany. He says:

Moxon Street Site
I write in advance of the meeting planned for the 10th of April to express my concern with regard to the planning brief for the Moxon Street site. This appears to imply an intention on the part of the council to dispose of the site. I wish to enquire how the education needs of the area will be satisfied, and whether an option might be retained for a development to incorporate a school.
I write on behalf of the St. Marylebone school which, as you may know, is restricted on its present site. The site is held in trust for the benefit of the School. The School can neither move out of London, nor develop the present site further. There is considerable demand for places at the School and the Governors believe that growth in the capacity of the School can only be accommodated on a site fairly close to the present school premises in St. Marylebone. Moxon Street would provide an ideal and close site for this purpose.
I trust that you will be able to take our interest into consideration in your deliberations of the planning brief. May I also ask for a response with regards to the points raised".
8.45 pm
That is a letter from a nearby school, the St. Marylebone school in Marylebone High street, saying that there is a need for a school on the site. It is crystal clear from the governors of that school that there is a need for a school on the site. Yet all we have had is assertions from Westminster council and the promoters that there is now no longer a need for a school. Those assertions are shown to be false by the letter from the governors of St. Marylebone school. The fox has been shot by that letter. There is clearly a need for a school and assertions that there is not are downright untrue. We should not pass clause 9 on the basis of untrue assertions.

Mr. Sedgemore: Could my hon. Friend tell me how what he has just said, which I have not heard before, fits in with the statement of the promoters? They say:
The City Council would therefore be in the position of having to build a school in a part of the City where there is little demand, to the detriment of educational provisions in other parts of the borough.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend's letter came from a teacher or head teacher but it says that there is a demand. How do those two statements square with each other?

Mr. Cohen: That is exactly my point. The first letter that I have read into the record was from Dr. Wilmington, the chairman of the governors. The letter to Councillor Davies was from Robin Magdalene, MA, FCA, FRSA. He has plenty of qualifications. I want plenty of qualifications for Londoners through the use of the site. He is a governor and chairman of the finance and premises committee. I will not repeat it, but he clearly says that St. Marylebone school is restricted on its present site and that there is much demand for places at the school that is not being fulfilled.
The Prime Minister—I do not know how long he will be Prime Minister—said only last week that the Conservatives were for giving parents choice about schools. It is not choice. It is the right to express a preference. There are not really places available. The Minister may laugh but when I wrote to him or his predecessor last year giving cases of people who cannot have their choice and asking him to intervene, his Department refused and said that it was a matter for the local authority. It is about a preference, not a choice.
The surface language and the presentation from the Government is that there is a choice. Here we have a school to which many parents want to send their children. It is restricted on its present site, children cannot get in


and parents cannot have their choice met. If the site, or part of it, was made available to them, the Government's language of choice could become more of a reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was absolutely right. The nonsense and disingenuousness of the statement issued by the promoters has been exposed.
Representations have been received from the university of Westminster. Professor Burlin sent a briefing to hon. Members which said:
Within two years, the City of Westminster had reached a radically different view of projected numbers of children, and was seeking through the current Bill … to be released from the requirement to build a primary school on the Moxom Street site. Planning guidelines have been produced … indicating a predominantly residential development,("a substantial number of new, high quality, residential units") and other uses, including retail development.
There we have it: Westminster council wants to build luxury houses and a supermarket.
Professor Burlin went on:
Much local publicity has been given in preparing for the expectation that, if the Bill is successful, Westminster will sell the site to the Howard de Walden Estate, providing a Waitrose supermarket and residential development. Other property developers are believed to be interested.
Incidentally, he included with his briefing an article from the Hampstead and Highgate Express of 12 May 1995. The article is headed "Rivals line up for prime site battle". It is reported that, as the university developer and supermarket chain prepare to fight it out, there is an "unseemly scramble" for a car park. It is only unseemly because of the action of Westminster council which is trying to make a profit out of the site. The article also states:
The Howard de Walden estates, the largest landowner in the area, has so far been the most vocal of the parties interested in the site.
The estate sees itself as a natural choice to buy the site, as it owns many of the properties that surround it and would therefore avoid running into the access problems that would discourage others.
The estate has teamed up with Waitrose and set out its stall in a new publication, The Marylebone Newsletter, which was recently distributed to local residents trumpeting the happy headline 'It's Waitrose!"'
It also states:
For the University of Westminster, acquisition of the site would be a godsend, enabling it to expand its Marylebone Road site and ditch some of the smaller, cripplingly expensive venues that it is currently forced to lease all around the borough.
Perhaps the most legitimate claim to the land is the most neglected. The University of Westminster has an undeniable claim to a property that, after all, was intended for educational use.
It then praises the university.
The article concludes by quoting Professor Burlin,who said:
We might not be able to compete financially with a developer like the Howard de Walden estate or a supermarket chain like Waitrose … They may be able to bid more money—but what it really comes down to is the value the council actually puts on education in Westminster.
It is not only a question of the value that the council places on education but of the value that the Government and the House place on it.
There are two options. If we allow the clause to be passed, Westminster will be duty bound, as has been said, to sell the site to property developers and the supermarket chain. Otherwise, the commitment is retained and the site is allowed to be used for educational purposes, in which case we place the proper value on education, as Professor Burlin said.
In his briefing to hon. Members, Professor Burlin said:
Since this site was acquired by the GLC in 1966, it has been promised for educational use … If it were put on the open market, there is no way that educational organisations, such as colleges or universities, could compete with the financial resources of developers. Therefore, to retain the site for educational purposes, it is vital that it remains designated for such purposes
Although the site may not now be required as a primary school, there are other important uses which, when they are examined, justify retaining the educational designation. These are nursery provision and post-compulsory education … The University of Westminster runs an over-subscribed day nursery on the Marylebone campus close to Moxon street, and with more space would be happy to cooperate in increasing various forms of nursery provision in the area.
I do not want to read all the briefing into the record—I would if I had more time—but it is clearly relevant. It states that the proven need for an expansion of full-time and part-time higher education is being ignored.
The briefing goes on to say that the university has been trying to overcome its problems caused by being dispersed uneconomically over 20 sites and has a programme to consolidate on five major sites by the year 2000. It continues:
Purchasing a further major building, against commercial competition, would overstrain our resources, given that many of the properties we have for disposal are leased rather than owned.
If the university had the site in question, it would not have to replicate such facilities as
refectories and libraries and services such as heating, caretaking and cleaning.
The university of Westminster has shown how it could cut its costs while pointing out the diversity of its needs.
Another briefing was sent to hon. Members earlier this year. I do not want to spend too much time on it, but it states:
The mission of the University of Westminster is to be the leading provider in the capital city of a high quality accessible portfolio of higher education and associated strategic research.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does my hon. Friend think that the university of Westminster might have approached the local authority with rather greater optimism some time ago when the authority might have had a greater awareness of the university's history—its first constituent college was founded by the first Lord Hailsham, or Quintin Hogg—and of its long association with that aspect of the Conservative party which always showed itself to be concerned with education and the good of the people of London? Now, the university seems to be dealing with the modern and rather different Conservative Administration, who have different values.

Mr. Cohen: Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The university has certainly been treated poorly by the current Conservative council and by the Minister who, despite his so-called neutral stance, has not done what an Education Minister should have done. The present Conservatives have not listened properly, and I think my hon. Friend is probably right to say that the Conservatives of the past were concerned about education and would


probably have given the university a fairer hearing than the current lot, who are interested only in land speculation, property development and such commercial activities.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. However, I thought that he was going to make a different point: I thought that he was going to suggest that the university of Westminster would get a better hearing if clause 9 were not passed.
That is certainly true. If the clause is passed, the Conservatives on Westminster council who are not interested in education—who turn a deaf ear to it—will say that, because the legislation has been passed by Parliament, they have a duty under the law to sell the site to the highest bidder. The university of Westminster will not get any sort of hearing once the legislation is passed.
If we are to strengthen the hand of the university of Westminster in its discussions with the council, it is absolutely crucial that we do not pass the clause and that we pass the amendments to which I have referred. In view of the nature of the Conservatives with whom the university is dealing, it is correct that the House should try to strengthen the university's hand—the hand of education—in the negotiations. My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
9 pm
In the January briefing, the university of Westminster said that it is building on a major site in Harrow which it owns. However, that removes educational facilities from central London and the communities which they serve. That is a very good point. The briefing states:
The Moxon Street site … would be ideally located for a major building of the University of Westminster".
It continues:
Architects have undertaken preliminary drawings and estimate the site would accommodate a building with 17,000 sq m floor space. This would provide a large building in an ideal location for the University".

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now repeating arguments that he has already put to the House.

Mr. Cohen: I do not wish to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to put the argument in the words of the lobbyist, Professor Burlin. Some hon. Members cast doubt upon the statements that I made earlier in the debate and suggested that I was not stating the facts. I have tried to show that that information has not come from me; it has come from Professor Burlin, the university of Westminster and the St. Marylebone school. Professor Burlin's briefings and the letter from St. Marylebone's school show that there is a clearly established need for the site to be used for educational purposes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton has made his view quite clear on several previous occasions. He is repeating the arguments.

Mr. Cohen: I do not want to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Bryan Davies: My hon. Friend is seeking to stress that the authority he is now quoting—the vicechancellor—was acting in an entirely dispassionate way. He has no conceivable political axe to grind; he is simply concerned about the educational opportunities of his

institution in relation to the decision about that crucial piece of land. Therefore, it is rather important that my hon. Friend develops clearly the arguments that Professor Burlin has put to several hon. Members but which have not been clarified on the Floor of the House as yet.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Leyton that he should be giving his own speech. He may wish to adduce the arguments of others, but it is not a sufficient excuse for him to repeat a series of other people's arguments as a means of getting around the strictures that I have just offered him.

Mr. Cohen: I understand your concern, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House? You always guide us beautifully and we accept your guidance every time, but I am slight puzzled about this. What if my hon. Friend quotes 500 high-powered sources who are saying roughly the same thing? It has never stopped Ministers quoting 500 high-powered sources, so why should it stop Back Benchers doing the same?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Leyton has already received the answer: it is incumbent upon hon. Members to make their own speeches and not simply to quote from other sources, however eminent, as a substitute for their own views.

Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were correct in describing the sources as "eminent"; Professor Burlin, who is speaking on behalf of the university of Westminster, is certainly eminent. Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand what you have said about not repeating my argument and I do not want to do that. I was seeking to add emphasis and to give weight to my point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has already done that; he does not need to do it again.

Mr. Cohen: That is fair enough, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to make it clear that those points were not mine but those of the eminent people whom I quoted. My hon. Friend, in his intervention, made a good point about Professor Burlin—a new point, not made before. From Professor Burlin's point of view, this is not a party political matter. I am sorry in some ways that a Labour Member must raise the matter on behalf of the university. I am trying not to make my speech party political.
In some areas, doubt has been cast on Westminster city council. I am afraid that the district auditor's report will become a party political issue, but the arguments concerning the university must be judged on their merits. I just wish that the Minister would do so and that, when there is a vote at the end of this debate, hon. Members who have not been present in the Chamber will consider the arguments on their merits and not treat the matter as party political. If they did that and considered the points made by Professor Burlin in a non-party political fashion, they would not agree to clause 9.
Dyson Bell Martin drew attention to the meetings between the university of Westminster and the council. I have made this point before but I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to quote Dyson Bell Martin, which is important in this context:
The University of Westminster has been interested in acquiring part or all of the site for educational purposes since it became clear that the Council did not intend to build a school on it. University


representative have met members and officials of the Council at various times to discuss the matter. All such meetings have been polite, but rarely helpful and it is apparent that the Council has never had any intention of entering into serious discussions with the University about the land remaining in educational use.
That is all that I shall quote; otherwise, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will accuse me of repetition.
That quotation makes a weighty point about the council's treatment of the university, which the council has not taken seriously. Once the council gets the Bill in the form that it wants, it would not have to take the university seriously and will not do so. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make that point.
I will address next the planning brief, which is new information. I should like to take the House through some aspects of that brief, which is a long document.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking to a group of amendments. If he wants to use the planning brief to support his amendments, that will be all right—but he is not here simply to go through a series of documents.

Mr. Cohen: I will not do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will notice that I have just a few sheets of paper. Otherwise I might have read out the whole planning brief. In fact, of course, I would not have done so because you would have stopped me. I have selected key areas of the brief which relate to the use of the land for educational purposes and I will quote relevant parts in support of my amendments. I am sure that you will stop me if any of them are not relevant.
The planning brief is entitled "Main issues arising from the public consultation exercise" but, amazingly, it gives no specific consideration to educational use issues, particularly in respect of the university of Westminster. The extinction of the land for education purposes has been virtually taken for granted by Westminster council in its planning brief. That is shocking. One of the central arguments is that the site should be used for education purposes and that the university of Westminster should have first crack at the land—in other words, the option to use it. Yet the planning brief virtually ignores that argument. I accept that the argument is taken up in little bits but it is not dealt with coherently. It is not considered as an option.
The council has virtually taken it for granted that it will get its Bill through the House and thereby extinguish education use. That enhances the argument advanced by Dyson Bell Martin that the university has been treated extremely badly. Indeed, it has been virtually ignored by the council.
The planning brief refers to Howard de Walden Estates and a food supermarket. That is something that gets plenty of space in the brief. Indeed, it seems to have coloured the council's views. I shall not repeat that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely say that the largest landowner in the area, Howard de Walden Estates, had a bearing on the council officers' views when they came to prepare the brief. There was little discussion about education use and plenty of discussion about a food supermarket and what Howard de Walden Estates wants. It is not an especially sensible planning brief.
The planning brief includes a planning history of the site. It states:
It was intended to be a short term measure"—

that is, the use of the site as a car park—
pending redevelopment on a properly planned basis for educational purposes.
That does not mean a primary school but use for "educational purposes". That was stated in February 1995. That is what appears in the brief. The council officers make it clear that the land would be used for a car park
pending redevelopment on a properly planned basis for educational purposes.
The officers have given the game away. The history of the land turned on "education purposes", and that is why it was given to Westminster. The Minister is again looking exasperated. Let him understand that I am referring to the words in the brief. There we have it, "education purposes". Whatever the result of the Division, the argument is won. The site should be used for "education purposes".
We are told in the brief that the policies set out in the development plan
are guided by a number of long-standing planning objectives, of which maximising residential accommodation and ensuring a high quality environment are the most important to the development of the Moxon Street site.
It adds that new residential building
is usually by way of demolition and replacement rather than providing substantial net increases of housing on previously non-residential land.
On the whole, however,opportunities for such gains in the future will be few.
It was referring to opportunities to obtain sites for social housing. The same goes for sites for educational purposes and opportunities to improve the environment. Such opportunities will be few. We are talking about a busy, built-up, urban area. The opportunities for social housing and educational land will be few. That was in the officers' brief.
9.15 pm
So why should a supermarket be put on the site? If it is a matter of scarcity, what should be the priority? The future opportunities of land for the university of Westminster, are not in Harrow, in Timbuctoo or on the moon, but in Westminster in central London. Aneurin Bevan said that socialism was the language of priorities. In many ways, politics is the language of priorities. The House has to decide on priorities. If the opportunities are few, I say that the land would be best used for educational purposes and some social housing rather than a supermarket. It is there in the planning brief. It says:
opportunities for such gains in the future will be few.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times. I do not think that any of us can have failed to take it in.

Mr. Cohen: I hope that the Minister and other hon. Members have indeed taken it in. I was about to move on, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was just my way of emphasising the point.
The planning brief goes on to say:
Creche and nursery facilities would also be appropriate. Having regard to the long history of school proposals on the site, educational use—including higher education—is also considered appropriate.
Then the planning brief goes off at a strange tangent which shows how the officers were thinking. It refers to
a creche for staff, shoppers and community use.


It said that there was a need for nursery and creche facilities and for higher education premises on the site. I have read out Professor Burlin's letter, in which he said that the university would love to have the site to improve its nursery provision and creche facilities on its main site.
While the officers recognise that there is a need for such facilities, they do not attribute the need to the university of Westminster but go off at a tangent talking about shoppers. That shows how their minds were working and how they their attitudes were coloured by Howard de Walden Estates. They had it fixed in their minds that they would go for the supermarket. But the truth has come out: nursery facilities can be provided without a supermarket being built—they can be provided by the university. That is an important point.
The planners go on to say:
With regard to the Moxon Street site, traditional plot width articulation would be an advantage—particularly if residential elements are to be incorporated—and the design may benefit from additional emphasis on the corners. If the site includes educational use the relevant part of the development should have an appropriately designed civic character. Any development should incorporate traditional, high quality materials.
That was the officers' thinking about educational use. That was almost their sole reference to the argument that the site could be used for educational purposes. Then along comes the deal with the developers for a supermarket and the educational use gets flung out of the window.
The section of the planning brief that I have just read out gives a clue to the thinking of the council. It did not intend to give a fair and proper hearing to the University of Westminster.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times. It does not need rehearsing again.

Mr. Cohen: I am not rehearsing it, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am just pointing it out.
I come finally to the planning brief appendix. The House will appreciate that the brief is an inadequate document. The consultation on it was inadequate and that alone puts the preamble in doubt. Westminster council is taking a momentous step in extinguishing educational use for that land and putting the boot into the university, and it is doing that on the basis of an inadequate planning brief. The House should not tolerate that. We should send the whole thing back and say, "Think again and consult properly with the university."
There was amazing consultation towards the end of the exercise with people who responded to the council. Right in the forefront is Howard de Walden Estates and the answer to everything that it wants is, "Yes, yes, yes." The appendix shows that the answer to whatever it asked for was yes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has also made that point several times.

Mr. Cohen: Appendix 2 in the table of consultation—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In the House we do not proceed in debate simply by extensive quotations from documents. Hon. Members are expected to make their

own speeches, adducing particular points if they wish, but they are not expected simply to go through a whole series of documents.

Mr. Cohen: These are crucial documents and it was through them that the Bill came to the House. I am dealing with the consultation by virtue of which the council says that it is justified in extinguishing educational use for the site and putting a food supermarket on the land.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have explained that references to documents are in order. However, the hon. Gentleman is now engaging in considerable repetition of arguments that he has already put forward.

Mr. Cohen: I do not think that I am doing that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I say that the hon. Gentleman is doing that. Is he challenging my ruling?

Mr. Cohen: No, I am certainly not challenging your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am trying not to be repetitious. An analysis of my speech will show that it is my own. I have referred to documents, but only to relevant ones and I have quoted the appropriate parts and commented on them. If I had referred only to the documents, my speech would have been over in half an hour; as I have said, I have sought to comment on the relevance of the documents and I shall continue to do that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to confuse quality with quantity.

Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House will not confuse quality with quantity—the quantity of the quids in a deal with property developers and the quality of educational use. Education should be provided on this site. That is the quality and quantity argument that the debate is all about.

Mr. Sedgemore: Is my hon. Friend aware that his stance of argumentum ad verecundiam is one of the most powerful ways of debating that is known to mankind? If my hon. Friend wants that translated, it means arguing by reference to wise authority.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I do not propose to take that line of argument as I might upset you even more, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to do that—I want to make my own speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. One can also argue ad nauseam.

Mr. Brooke: Following the substantial conspiracy theory that the hon. Gentleman has adopted for the past half hour or so, would he like to tell the House how many planning applications are before Westminster city council for the Moxon street site, including those from the university of Westminster?

Mr. Cohen: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question himself when he makes his short speech, as I propose to sit down and allow him to do so. What value, however, is a planning application from the university of Westminster if the law has changed, as would be the case under the Bill? If the law has changed, the council is under no obligation to use the land for educational purposes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said in an intervention a long time ago, and as was made clear by Dyson Bell Martin in its correspondence, Westminster council would be under an obligation to sell the land to the highest bidder. A planning application from the university of Westminster would be worthless in those circumstances. If the planning application is to be meaningful, it would therefore be best for the House not to pass the clause and for one of my amendments to be passed instead. If the right hon. Gentleman is putting weight on the university of Westminster's planning application, he should support one of my amendments so that it can become a meaningful application.
I am coming to a close because I want to give other hon. Members a chance to speak, although I could continue for longer. I want to continue without, I hope, referring to the planning brief too much. I am trying not to do that—I have dealt briefly with that brief. In the consultation, the recommendations of the university of Westminster were greeted repeatedly with the answer "no". Other people were consulted. The Marylebone Association said:
For a supermarket to be viable it would have to attract thousands of people from outside the area. This would increase traffic in the area, which the surrounding streets are unsuited for. Additional traffic could cause gridlock in the area, noise and air pollution in this largely residential area.
It adds that, as well as traffic problems, there would be night-time delivery problems. Again, you will not let me quote directly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but clearly there would be traffic problems. In its reply, the council says:
The City Council is concerned that a supermarket use, if granted planning permission, provides for local needs and does not attract traffic into the area. The traffic, highway and environmental implications of a proposed supermarket use will be assessed, in detail, when an application is submitted.
The St. Marylebone Society talks about a supermarket not being necessary in the area because there are large stores in Oxford street and other aspects.
The Marylebone Association and St. Marylebone Society make a genuine point. If a supermarket were to be located in this region, there would be additional traffic, noise and nuisance in an area which already has heavy traffic. The council admits that that is a distinct possibility. That is why it is saying that any application for a supermarket would have to be considered closely. It is not saying that there would not be additional traffic, noise, fumes and everything. By the nature of its reply, it is virtually saying that that is a distinct possibility and that that would be a nuisance to residents.
The case is overwhelming that this land should be retained for educational purposes. That was the intention of the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and the London residuary body when that council transferred the land free of charge to Westminster council. There is an educational need—I spelled that out—from St. Marylebone school and, on a non-party political basis, I have spoken a great deal about the university of Westminster's position, saying that its need is massive.
The council has acted in a dubious way on a number of things. The district auditor's report says that the council—this is public knowledge—likes to make

property deals with property developers and speculators. Who knows what some of the options on those deals might have been?
The House should examine the matter openly and in detail. At the end of the day, we should reach a decision based purely on the merits of the case—that is, the best use of the land for the community. If that question is considered, the answer can be only educational use, perhaps with some social housing as well. That is way ahead of anything proposed by the property speculators, such as a supermarket.
The House should not accept the clause. Instead, it should support one of my amendments. We should do the right thing by Westminster university and for education in London.

Mr. Robin Squire: It may help the House if I intervene in the debate at this stage. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—indeed, the whole House—is now well aware that the purpose of clause 9 is to relieve Westminster city council of the duty to establish a primary school on the council-owned site in Moxon street, Westminster. Approval for the project was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, under section 12 of the Education Act 1980, on 22 February 1991.
I understand that, subsequent to that approval, the authority concluded that there was no longer a need for new primary school places in the relevant catchment area. The judgment of such need is a matter for the local education authority, which is responsible for providing education for children in the area. To relieve the council of the duty to implement my right hon. Friend's decision under section 12, it is necessary to introduce a private Bill clause broadly in the terms of clause 9. Until such a clause is enacted, Westminster city council remains liable to implement my right hon. Friend's 1991 decision.
It may be helpful to Opposition Members if I offer some clarification of the conditions attached to the transfer of the site to Westminster city council in 1991. The transfer was subject to the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991. Part I of the schedule to that order listed the recipients of land transferring from the London residuary body, with a short description of each property concerned.
I must emphasise that, although the Moxon street site was identified in the following terms:
site for proposed new primary school, Moxon Street/Cramer Street W1",
those words were a description, not a condition, of the transfer. The condition attached to the transfer was set out in article 4 of the order, which stated that land transferred in the way that the Moxon street site was transferred was subject to the condition that it, or any interest in it, should not be disposed of within 20 years of the transfer date without the consent in writing of the Secretary of State. It would be open to my right hon. Friend to withhold that consent. Further, when giving that consent, my right hon. Friend may impose conditions regarding the distribution of the disposal proceeds between the inner-London authorities.
The House will note that, contrary to the repeated claims of the hon. Member for Leyton, the conditions governing Moxon street do not restrict the site to


educational use. It is true that, in some other property transfer orders, education use was a condition of the property transfer. For example, some land was requested to be brought into educational use by a specific date or else disposed of.
It is not possible to say specifically, after some years, why different conditions were imposed, but I can confirm—this is most important in the light of the hon. Gentleman's repeated accusations directed at Westminster council—that the conditions which I outlined for Moxon street apply not just to Westminster city council, but to other councils that received property under part I of schedule 6 of the order. They include Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Hertfordshire. It is clear that Westminster was not singled out for any special treatment.
It has not been the practice of the Department for Education to verify with authorities the use that they are making of the sites in question. That is a matter for the authorities that own the sites. In this case, Westminster council concluded that the census projections no longer warranted the establishment of a new school and brought the matter to the attention of the Department. Acting on the basis of advice from my Department's officials that a private Bill would be the appropriate means of relieving the council of the duty to implement the Secretary of State's section 12 approval, the council introduced clause 9.
I have a high regard for the university of Westminster and I wish it well in its various plans. Unlike schools, universities are private sector, autonomous institutions. They receive much of their income from private sources, determine their own admissions policy and curricula and are free to organise academic business affairs as they wish. Most important, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Government may not intervene in such affairs or direct funds towards individual institutions. The House will understand why I cannot say more about the amendment that related to the university, to which the hon. Gentleman made considerable reference in his speech.
Amendments Nos. 26, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 could impose new responsibilities on the Secretary of State for Education. They would include making an order; establishing whether the site was needed for an educational purpose, whether for the council or another body; approving the disposal of land within three years; within one year, ordering the transfer of the site to an educational body; satisfying herself that there is insufficient demand for a new county primary school; investigating whether Westminster has published and consulted about reasons for not wanting the school; and requiring the submission of a scheme for future ownership and use of the site.
Those requirements exceed by some considerable way what is required in the case of other property transferred by the order that covered Moxon street. The House would not be surprised if the Secretary of State were to regard those proposed duties as onerous and excessive.

Mr. Brooke: There were no petitions in relation to the Bill in either House, and the sponsors were not approached by any of those who are now taking an interest in the Bill until after the Committee in this House—the second House to consider the matter, as the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. I congratulate

the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on the interest that he has developed at a late stage in the subjects with which the Bill deals, even though I am not sure that I would congratulate him on much else.
I realise that the hon. Gentleman's primary interest is in the sex shop issue to which we will come at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman seemed anxious to defer that later stage this evening.

Mr. Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman was on his feet for two and a half hours.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has just said something that is quite untrue. I wanted the other stage of the Bill to come first, and this stage to come second. The choice was purely in the hands of the Clerks.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point of substance. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has also embraced the interests of my constituents at the university of Westminster, who enjoy my admiration every bit as much as they enjoy his. However, his scatter of amendments would throw the Moxon street site open not just to the university of Westminster, but to every publicly funded body with an educational purpose. Incidentally, the city council does not favour or oppose the aspirations of the university of Westminster. It recognises that, as a planning authority, it has a duty towards the site and it appreciates that the university may well have a close interest in it.
In his long speech, the hon. Member for Leyton said that clause 9 was all about prejudging the issue. At present, there is an obligation to start building a primary school by 1 September 1995; that is a couple of months away. The only way in which the council could escape the obligation was by introducing a clause in private legislation—hence clause 9, which has been in the Bill since November 1993.
In amendment No. 28, the hon. Member for Leyton seeks to remove clause 9 from the Bill. He would thus oblige Westminster city council to build a county primary school on the Moxon street site, although there is reasonable agreement that there is no need for a county primary school there, and that to build such a school there would do nothing for the interests of the university of Westminster, which the hon. Gentleman says he espouses.
The history of the planning of the primary school site came up at length in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Westminster city council inherited planning which had been initiated by the Inner London education authority before the site was transferred. The shadow education committee of Westminster city council looked at the matter in January 1990, before the transfer, endorsed ILEA's plan and got permission from the then Secretary of State to put up a primary school by 1 September 1992. The council has, however, revisited the planning statistics.
The expectation, held first by ILEA and then by Westminster city council, was that there would be a considerable influx of Hong Kong Chinese children into that part of Westminster because of what would happen


in Hong Kong in 1997 and because the Chinese community had its centre in Soho, in my constituency. Those expectations have not been fulfilled.
The hon. Member for Leyton produced a random scatter of amendments. I shall briefly pay him the compliment of referring to them, even though some are in conflict with each other.
Amendment No. I was the first for the House to consider. The fact that we are discussing the educational aspect first is a function, therefore, of an amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled and not of a decision by anybody else. Amendment No. 1 is legally incorrect because it implies that the city council has a statutory duty to use the land for educational purposes wider than a primary school. In fact, the only statutory educational duty on Westminster city council in relation to the site is, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, to establish a county primary school.
Amendment No. 27 is a paving amendment for amendments Nos. 30, 31, 34 and 35. I have already alluded to amendment No. 28 in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to strike clause 9 out of the Bill and thus to oblige Westminster to embark on a county primary school by 1 September this year.
My hon. Friend the Minister has commented on amendment No. 26 and the series of subsequent amendments. As he says, they would impose a range of duties on the Secretary of State which there is no evidence that she would seek. In amendment No. 26, the hon. Member for Leyton asks the Secretary of State to have done all the things described in it by 1 September this year, which is unreasonable. Amendment No. 29 is in conflict with amendment No. 31. I ask the hon. Gentleman what would happen if no applicant met the requirements or if the Secretary of State would not accept the terms.
Amendment No. 30 is superfluous, as the conditions under the order are not removed by clause 9.
Amendment No. 31 states:
the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street".
There would be a potential conflict of users, as the hon. Member for Leyton has thrown the transfer open to all educational bodies that are publicly funded. I am not sure how that would be resolved. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that Hackney would forgo its share, but I must correct the hon. Member for Leyton, as the 13 local authorities that are the successors to ILEA would enjoy that windfall, and not the 32 London boroughs.
9.45 pm
I shall not comment elaborately on amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which are unnecessary to the central purpose. Amendment No. 35 is also otiose.
Amendment No. 36 enjoys the signatures of all the Labour Members who represent Greater London. There may be a potential conflict between those who represent outer-London boroughs and those who represent inner-London boroughs. I am a little surprised that a series of Labour Front-Bench spokesman have attached their names to an amendment that states:
It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two",

when there is no duty to use the land for social housing or a mixture.
The right of National Car Parks, which occupies the site, to a new lease would inevitably restrict the scope for the owner, whoever that may be—including all the potential owners to whom the hon. Member for Leyton referred. Height restrictions are also imposed on the site, which would limit the potential development of the site.
At this juncture, it might be helpful—not least given the reference of the hon. Member for Leyton to the council's planning department—if I said a general word about Westminster city council's position.
As the site was transferred from the LRB specifically for the purposes of the new school, it may not be used for other purposes involving a disposal of any legal interest without the consent of the Secretary of State for Education being obtained, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools said. Unless the Secretary of State were satisfied in respect of any alternative proposals, he might direct that the site be sold and the proceeds distributed among the inner-London boroughs. As a local education authority, the city council has no alternative proposals for the site.
As a local education authority, the city council is conscious of the legal restraints affecting the future use of the Moxon street site. The council's role as a local planning authority, however, imposes additional and not altogether compatible duties on the council. For some time, there has been considerable interest from third parties concerning the use of the site, to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred. In view of that, as a planning authority it has been incumbent on the council, as the hon. Gentleman said, to draw up policy guidelines as to what might be acceptable uses for the site. To that end, draft planning guidelines were considered by the city council's planning and transportation committee in November 1994. The guidelines were reconsidered by the planning and transportation on 28 March and approved. They show that acceptable uses would be mixed residential/ commercial, educational/social and/or community use. The hon. Gentleman gave us a protracted account of that, but that is what the guidelines contain.
Although officers of the city council's planning department have met representatives of various interested parties, including Howard de Walden Estates, which figured in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton, and the university of Westminster, the city council has received no valid planning application for the development of the site. It has made no policy decision on the future use or disposal of the Moxon street site, as any such decisions would be subject to the following: clause 9 of the Bill being successfully enacted; the city council deciding whether it required the land for its own purposes and, if not, the consent of the Secretary of State for Education to disposal being obtained; and, finally, resolving the issue of National Car Parks occupation of the site, to which the hon. Member for Leyton made only a passing reference.
The clause will absolve Westminster city council from an obligation inherited from ILEA to put a county primary school on a site where, according to the local education authority, there is no demand for such a school and enable the city council to proceed to subsequent decisions on what should be done with the site. The conspiracy theory of the hon. Member for Leyton does not have much substance.
I commend to the House the proposal that we pass a clause that will give the local authority the ability to free itself of an obligation which it inherited and perpetuated.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), on the way in which he replied to the debate and clarified some of the issues. He was, however, somewhat unfair to two parties. First, he was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who did not seek to say that the educational aspects of the Bill should be put first. As the right hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend's arguments were simply a straight reflection of where the amendments appeared on the amendment paper. My hon. Friend sought to emphasise that his major anxiety was about the later clauses dealing with sex shops.
The second party to which the right hon. Gentleman was unfair was the university of Westminster, which he suggested was a late entrant in the race. That may be so, but that does not detract from the strength of the argument that land that had been the subject of such a transfer should be used for educational purposes. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister should recognise the sensitivities in many parts of London and further afield about such land transfers.
The London residuary body was an undemocratic body set up by the previous Conservative Administration to take over the role of former elected administrations in London. As a consequence of that role, it began to dispose of substantial land assets, placing restrictions on certain transfers but few restrictions on others. Labour Members are bound to be anxious about decisions taken about land that was formerly subject to direct democratic control but then fell into the hands of the LRB and subsequently individual councils, which may or may not have put the land to the use originally intended. I do not say whether Westminster is right to seek to reach decisions on that matter, but the land has a chequered history.
The issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and others have sought to draw attention is that, only a short while ago, the land was clearly expected to be used for educational purposes. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said that it was expected that Hong Kong refugees would flood into this country and that their children would be educated in that school.
That may be so, and we accept his argument that the authority does not need that site for a primary school. But given that we are dealing with land designated for educational use, the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect hon. Members simply to take the view that a university that applies to enter the frame and be considered for the land's use should be regarded as just another private body. He is right to say that universities are private institutions, but undue favour towards the university would be outwith the Minister's power.
Equally clearly, the university of Westminster has a good case to put to public authorities, the local authority concerned and hon. Members, as it could put that land to good use. That is the case with a number of inner-city higher education institutions but, with the exception of the City university, Guildhall and certain colleges of London university, the university of Westminster is competing for the most expensive real estate in the United Kingdom. Those institutions are doing that with limited resources—

resources that the Government do little to increase, in circumstances where demands on higher education institutions increase apace.
It is therefore not surprising that the university of Westminster, seeking to respond to the needs of our community for more higher education places, and to expand the facilities at its disposal—and in doing so at present being forced into the constraint of having to develop an institutional facility as far away as Harrow—looks on the Moxon street site.
The site is close to the three major sites that the university already uses. It would be especially advantageous for the university to consolidate its premises, giving it the chance to serve the very students whom it exists to serve, especially, as was mentioned earlier, the many part-time students and students who come from relatively deprived backgrounds. For those students, travel is bound to be a problem in terms of distance and of cost. Therefore, there is a great advantage in the university being local and able to provide courses and opportunities where those people have their homes and where they work.
The understandable and excellent case that has been made by the university of Westminster in the context of the Bill will undoubtedly have exercised the minds of hon. Members. It calls on them to reflect on whether the proposals underpinning that part of the measure are entirely advisable. On that basis, I believe that the sponsor of the measure, although he has ably responded to the debate, has not cleared up all our anxieties about those proposals.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am delighted to take part in the debate, if only for a few minutes. I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on his usual lucid, sharp speech. He presented an enormous amount of information in a short time, and he cleared up a matter that had worried me—how it came about that there was a transfer in 1991 and why the council changed its mind so quickly in 1993. He said that it was about a misreading of the number of children from Hong Kong who would come to London.
I do not believe that that negates anything that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said. He spoke for two and a half hours. He spoke with great force and clarity, and he convinced me that that land should be kept for educational purposes and/or for social housing.
I think the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South was a bit unfair when he said that some of the amendments contradict themselves. It is not unusual, in my experience, or in his—he is much more experienced than I am—for Governments or Back Benchers from either side of the House to table amendments that contradict one another. In effect, my hon. Friend is giving the House a chance to consider several amendments and to say, "That is one I want," and he is allowing us to have a vote on that one. I am not sure which one he wants to vote on.
I first interested myself in the Bill when the university of Westminster opened several homes in the London borough of Hackney as student accommodation. The vice-chancellor then mentioned to me the Bill that is now before us, and said that he would consult me subsequently to discover whether I could help.
I do not suppose that I can help. I dare say that the might of the Government Whips on this private Bill will carry the day. Nevertheless, I can think of no reason why I should not try to make a few intelligent comments on behalf of the university before the vote tonight.
As I understand the legal position, obviously Westminster council is the local education authority in the city of Westminster. Clause 9 would relieve the city council of its statutory duty to build a primary school on the Moxon street site in the City, pursuant to section 12(9) of the Education Act 1980. That is interesting in itself, because the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said that the university of Westminster had come late to the debate; but, to my certain knowledge, the university first expressed an interest in the site in 1980 and it has expressed an interest in it ever since.
We know that the site was originally acquired by the GLC in 1966 under slum clearance powers. As I was working at the Ministry of Housing, as it then was, and signing most of those documents, it may well be—

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what my hon. Friend is saying—

Mr. Brooke: rose—

Mr. Don Dixon: It is a point of order.

Mr. Cohen: I am mindful of your earlier comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, about repetition. I think that there is an element of repetition in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). If that is the case, and given that you chastised me over repetition, why should my hon. Friend repeat the same points that were made earlier in the debate?

Mr. Brooke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it the case that if someone moves a point of

order just before 10 o'clock that precludes any other hon. Member from moving that the debate be brought to a close?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not possible for the occupant of the Chair not to hear a point of order.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I observed my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) rise before 10 o'clock and I thought that I heard him say that he wanted to move the closure. If another hon. Member has raised a point of order some time before 10 o'clock, with the clear intention of continuing his point of order until 10 o'clock is reached, how is it possible for an hon. Member or a right hon. Member to move the closure?

Mr. Cohen: That scurrilous comment is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to hear a point of order even if it is raised just before 10 o'clock. I am afraid that there is no other way out of it.
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
To be resumed upon Thursday next.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Lady Olga Maitland be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

CATERING

Ordered,
That Mrs. Irene Adams be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr. Bill Etherington be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkwood, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Disruptive Tenants (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate on an important subject, which I am sure the Minister would agree is a matter of concern.
It is important that hon. Members should recognise the level of concern that is now abroad, not just in Scotland but elsewhere—witness the reaction of the official Opposition, who have recently produced a paper on the subject. There is increasing concern that criminal, anti-social behaviour by a minority of tenants and some others on council estates in Scotland is now beginning to get out of hand.
I do not want to exaggerate the extent of the problem. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the absolute number of which we are talking may be relatively small. It is, however, now impossible to ignore the effect on law-abiding citizens and their families when they are confronted by wilful, continuing, deliberate harassment by neighbours.
Family life can be almost totally destroyed in some cases. Reputations of streets and entire housing schemes can be prejudiced by the criminal fraternity, who persistently thumb their noses at the police, the courts and housing authorities. I believe that tenants who are so afflicted have the right to expect better protection than they currently enjoy. Urgent steps need to be taken. The law, in my submission, is currently inadequate to deal with the problem. Therefore, additional powers and resources need to be brought to bear to provide some satisfactory remedy.
From time to time, I suppose that it is understandable that households, wherever they are situated, will come across a degree of vandalism, noise, verbal or physical abuse, threats of violence, racial harassment, damage to property, trespass, nuisance from dogs and the like. As isolated incidents, they are part and parcel of normal, modern life. Individually, they are all, when perpetrated with criminal intent, criminal offences. As isolated incidents, they can be much more easily dealt by our citizens.
They are much more difficult to deal with when they are happening through the wall or across the street every night. The intensity and location of such activities compound their effect. The irresponsible minority of tenants who perpetrate such activities terrorise their neighbours and local communities, and something has to be done about it.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I draw a distinction—because a distinction has to be very clearly drawn—between the criminal minority and those households that are in genuine difficulty because of mental illness or some other bona fide reason. There have been cases in which, for example, demented elderly people have created nuisances for their neighbours. There have been incidents involving schizophrenics—schizophrenia is a terrible illness when it affects families—or over-active children.
Those mental and physical illnesses can create difficulties for the families in which they are evident but they can also have an impact on neighbours. Such cases can be difficult, and must be handled in the light of the clinical conditions.
It is extremely important, in my view, that the development of care regimes in the community—there are many modern and interesting examples of care in the community for people who have clinical conditions of the sort that I have just mentioned—should not be restricted by or confused with the activities of people who are caught continuously intoxicated by drink or drugs, or who are simply motivated by unprovoked evil and malice.
I have said that existing local powers are completely inadequate. Local authorities are effectively unable to make eviction actions under section 74 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 stick. In my experience, that is mainly due to lack of corroborating evidence. For that reason, the powers are very rarely used. It would be useful for the current debate if the Minister could tell the House how many successful eviction actions have been brought in the recent past. If that is too short notice, I understand, and I will seek to table a written question to solicit the necessary information.
A number of remedies have already been canvassed by the Government and other people. We need a strong signal from the Government that more political energy and some financial resources are going to be devoted to the resolution of the problem. For example, more resources are needed to develop further a culture where antisocial neighbours are actively discouraged. In that regard, tenants associations, with the vital role they play in many communities, come to mind. I also think that conditions in tenancy agreements need to be examined and to be made tougher in terms of sanctions against anti-social tenants.
More could be done to encourage multi-agency approaches, including social work, the police and school authorities. All those services could be developed and given more powers. In addition, mediation services are under-utilised, but, of course, more resources are required if they are to be set up and conducted in a proper and meaningful way. Finally, and some would say most important, court proceedings need to be toughened and streamlined. Better witness protection is now essential in prosecutions under section 47 of the 1987 Act.
I am aware that the Government have commissioned several pieces of research, and I am pleased to hear that. I know that the Institute of Housing is examining various aspects of the problem. I am, of course, also aware that the Government have produced a document on probationary tenancies, and that the consultation process has been put in hand. That is welcome as far as it goes, but the consultation document outlining the Government's plans for a probationary period for new tenants is extremely disappointing and weak.
As it stands, the consultation document will be irrelevant, and of absolutely no value to local housing authorities, because it applies only for an initial period and is restricted to new tenants. There is a crying need to deal with anti-social tenants who are already secure tenants under Scottish housing legislation.
The Government must bear in mind the fact that an important opportunity is approaching, and must be used to make significant progress. Next April, as the Minister knows, Scottish local authorities will become unitary authorities, which means that they will amalgamate the


processes and duties of housing and social work functions in one authority under one roof. That provides an opportunity for much greater co-ordination of the two functions and departments, and I hope that that opportunity will not be missed.
We are told in the press—indeed, there may be a statement later this week—that a housing Bill is under consideration for inclusion in the Queen's Speech for the next Session. I appreciate that no one can anticipate exactly what will be in the Queen's Speech, but, if such a piece of legislation is in gestation and if it is not restricted to England and Wales, it will give Scottish Office Ministers the opportunity to look afresh at the framework of laws surrounding anti-social tenants.
After the consultation period ends on 31 July, they should be well placed to introduce new measures. I hope that the Minister may say that, if there is to be a parliamentary opportunity to change the law next year, he will seize it with both hands and propose meaningful changes to stiffen the powers currently available to local authorities.
My message to the Minister this evening is that he must take the opportunity to give local authorities real powers to deal with criminal anti-social tenants and provide resources to set up specialist teams to examine the problem, to set up pilot projects to study individual cases in depth and to produce more research. If he did so, he would be sending an important signal to those who are currently deliberately flouting authority and causing misery to those who live near them.
Subject to the exception of those who are clinically ill, local authorities should be given a statutory power to impose probationary status on any tenants at any time during which they can be shown to the local authority's satisfaction to be acting anti-socially. If they do not improve during the 12-month probation period, an accelerated eviction process through the courts should be considered. If that happened and was successful, any family so evicted would of course be classified as intentionally homeless, and thereby unable to take advantage of the provisions of the homeless persons legislation.
Housing departments, social workers and the police must work together much more closely in order to prevent those terrible situations arising. If and when they do arise, greater powers and resources are needed to provide an adequate response and to restore the Queen's peace on Scotland's housing estates.
I have deliberately avoided arguing the case for change on the basis of emotional case histories. I certainly hope that I have not given any succour to those who deal with nonconformity in any heavy-handed way. I simply want to represent to the Minister my belief that the current situation is profoundly unsatisfactory. Tonight it is within his power to provide statutory relief—or the possibility of such relief in the future—for many households who are blighted by anti-social tenants. All he need do is agree to give urgent consideration to strengthening the law when he replies to the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and

Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on introducing a very timely and important subject for debate tonight. He asked about the number of actions on eviction that have taken place. The best way for him to proceed is to put down a barrage of parliamentary questions, and I shall undertake to make available whatever information we have.
He will appreciate that we are now consulting about probationary tenancies, and I shall return to that subject in a moment. What he has said tonight will be borne in mind during that process before we arrive at any final decisions. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is too late in this parliamentary Session to take immediate action on that matter, but we are looking at it very seriously with regard to the consultation process.
How we deal with disruptive tenants is vital to the hundreds of thousands of tenants who are in their homes in Scotland tonight. I hope that I shall touch upon most, if not all, of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We welcome the recent announcement by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee that its next inquiry will examine housing and anti-social behaviour. We await the Committee's deliberations with great interest.
One of the most basic human needs is to be able to have the quiet enjoyment of our homes. For all people, whether old or young, home should bring a sense of well-being and of belonging. The expression "home and hearth" symbolises all that a home should be in terms of contentment, well-being and belonging. Yet that depends crucially on the actions of our neighbours. We long for them to be good neighbours, behaving responsibly towards others, being considerate, and perhaps being able to help out in a moment of need.
If one were to look for a single word to describe that, I suppose that one would light on the word "community". As we consider disruptive tenants in the debate tonight, I think that it is worth while remembering that there are many places in Scotland where there is a real sense of community, and where people genuinely contribute to the common enjoyment of their housing.
Therefore, it is particularly tragic when people who should be able to enjoy their homes and neighbourhoods are unable to do so because of the activities of their neighbours. I come across that regularly in my visits to housing estates, in my discussions with tenants, officials and councillors, and in the letters I receive.
Tenants expect to be able to enjoy their home and their surroundings. They should not be terrified to go out of their front door; they should not be subject to abuse, whether intermittent or regular; they should not be subject to intimidation; and they certainly should not be subject to harassment. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and I have every sympathy with those who face it. Their lives are made intolerable by the actions of a few.
The first point I shall make tonight is that there are a range of powers and sanctions available to landlords to deal with disruptive behaviour. The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 deals with vandalism. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that examined the Bill, and he played a major part in the process. I pay tribute to him, as he worked extremely hard on that occasion. Under the Act, anyone who wilfully, or by culpable negligence, damages a house or any part of a house shall be guilty of an offence, liable on summary conviction to a fine, without prejudice to any remedy for the recovery of the amount of the damage.
The Public Health (Scotland) Act 1987, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 all contain provisions which deal with noise nuisance. They are relevant where people suffer noise nuisance from their neighbours and the 1982 Act is particularly useful where people have failed to desist from noise.
Section 49 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 deals with annoying creatures—for example, excessively noisy dogs. In addition, many tenancy conditions include a section on the keeping of pets, which is important, since the presence of pets in houses or flats can lead to disputes between neighbours and to anti-social behaviour.
Mediation is one way of defusing disputes and of resolving disruptive behaviour, which is often very successful. It brings the parties together and helps to bring about mutual understanding and respect. Much information is available about mediation, including material issued by the Scottish Office.
Interdicts are a particularly appropriate means of restraining anti-social behaviour by disruptive tenants. They have a number of advantages, but perhaps the most important are that they can be obtained quickly and they have immediate effect. That is important, because tenants who are suffering abusive or other disruptive behaviour want immediate remedy. Interdicts need not apply only to a tenant of a house but can apply to a lodger or co-habitee who may be causing the disruptive behaviour complained of. They can also be applied to owner-occupiers who may be the source of disruptive behaviour.
Action taken under the provisions that I have just described will often be sufficient to stop disruptive behaviour, but where those do not work, as the ultimate sanction tenants can be removed from their houses when landlords, private or public, seek recovery of possession. The provisions governing that are contained in the housing legislation, and are designed to ensure that tenants cannot be removed on landlords' whim.
I am aware that the requirements set out in the legislation can make recovery of possession a lengthy procedure, with a difficult and contested case perhaps taking as much as 18 months from the beginning of proceedings to recovery of possession. As I understand it, however, that represents the more extreme, case in which the tenant or tenants contest the action, and it is important that it is not presented as the norm.
People who seek a change in the law should beware changing the law to suit the exceptional case. Clearly there is a balance to be achieved between being able to evict tenants at whim and giving tenants security of tenure, and between dealing firmly and effectively with disruptive behaviour and evicting tenants whose face simply has not fitted. Getting that balance right is what much of the current debate on disruptive behaviour by tenants is about.
My second main point concerns probationary tenancies, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and on which we issued a consultation paper one month ago. A number of authorities north and south of the border have suggested that new tenants should be on probation initially, until the landlord can judge that they are able to behave responsibly and are not disruptive.
The proposal for probationary tenancies recognises that a secure tenancy is a valuable asset, giving an individual a home for life. The great majority of tenants behave

responsibly, and that is shown in their behaviour towards their landlords and neighbours. They want quiet enjoyment of their homes. Unfortunately, however, there exists a minority whose life style and behaviour is incompatible with that. In the case of new tenants, such behaviour is likely to become apparent quite quickly.
The purpose of the proposals for a probationary tenancy is to give a clear signal to new tenants that anti-social behaviour is unacceptable—so serious that it will result in the loss of their home. That proposal will reassure existing tenants that landlords are able to take rapid action to remove new tenants whose behaviour is disruptive.
Under our proposals, public sector landlords will be able to opt in to a system of probationary tenancies. I emphasise the point about opting in to probationary tenancies, because many public sector landlords in Scotland will not feel the need for a probationary tenancy system.
For those authorities which see a probationary tenancy system as helping to deal with disruptive behaviour, all new tenants will be on probation for one year. Those tenants who complete the probationary tenancy satisfactorily will automatically become secure tenants. Where tenants do not behave responsibly, however, the landlord will be able to terminate the tenancy at any time during the probationary period.
When I first announced that we would be consulting on the matter, I made it clear that I would do so with an open mind. That remains the position, and I welcome comments from any organisation or hon. Member. Thinking has changed somewhat over the years, and what was not a major issue has become one.
Thirdly, there is no simple answer to dealing with disruptive tenants. There is no panacea that will cure the problem once and for all. As I have already said, there is a range of actions that can be taken by landlords and by other bodies. Many in the housing profession would argue that what is needed is not the provision of new powers, or more draconian measures to deal with disruptive tenants, but a wider use of existing remedies.
It might be helpful if I remind the hon. Gentleman that, before 1980, public sector tenants did not have the security of tenure that private sector tenants had. So, before 1980, public sector landlords were able to apply to a court for an eviction order, which was granted more or less as a formality, with no evidence being required, and with no right of defence for the tenant.
The Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Act 1980 changed that by giving public sector tenants security of tenure. Henceforth, tenants could be evicted from their home only when there was good reason, and after certain procedures had been followed. It must be remembered that the calls from some quarters for tougher action on disruptive tenants may require a diminution of those rights. In considering any proposal for dealing with disruptive tenants, we need to strike the right balance and examine the consequences before we take a certain course of action.
In many instances, housing departments are where the problems are first reported. It is therefore important that landlords have clear procedures established, so that front-line staff know how to deal with a complaint about disruptive behaviour. Such behaviour will often raise complex issues, and some local authorities have established a specialist team to which complaints can be referred.
Every public sector landlord has a tenancy agreement which new tenants must sign, and many of these contain conditions about acceptable behaviour. Tenancy conditions need to be enforced consistently and firmly, or they will be discredited. When that happens, respect for housing authorities diminishes, too.
Neighbour disputes may begin over a relatively trivial matter, and escalate rapidly into something much more serious. Early action is essential to ensure that that does not happen. We have recently made available a considerable amount of material on neighbour disputes. These are dealt with in good practice note No. 5, published in February by the Scottish Office.
It makes it clear that disputes between tenants may not be clear cut, and that considerable skill is required on the part of housing managers to judge appropriate action. At my constituency surgery recently, one neighbour complained about another. The following week, the second neighbour complained about the first. The hon. Gentleman may have had similar experiences.
The good practice note suggests how landlords can take a proactive approach to neighbour disputes. That could include the provision of a helpline service for tenants, offering advice on action that can be taken in different situations, the use of mediation and arbitration, the use of management transfers to take a tenant out of the situation, and the use of legal action, including restraint—notably interdicts—and repossession.
I believe that the good practice note on tenancy management contains much useful information for landlords, which will enable them to develop a strategy to deal with disruptive behaviour—for example, when there is extensive drug taking and threats of violence.
One of the constant themes recurring in recent work on dealing with anti-social behaviour is the need to adopt a partnership approach, with all authorities concerned working together. Housing departments cannot plough a lone furrow. Apart from the landlord, others who may be involved include the environmental, health and social work departments of local authorities, health boards and the police.
In many instances, anti-social behaviour will involve several of these bodies or agencies, and close working relations will make a great difference in ensuring that the problem is dealt with satisfactorily and quickly. Where a local authority landlord is involved, the housing department staff need to have close contacts with their legal colleagues. I understand that many of the interesting approaches being adopted by the City of Dundee district council are the result of close co-operation between the housing and legal services departments, and I hope that other authorities are able to take note of that.
In the last year or so, the Scottish Office has taken forward policy on disruptive tenants on a number of fronts. Advice was issued on 23 May about the powers available to deal with disruptive behaviour. It is also funding the Chartered Institute of Housing to do work on housing and anti-social behaviour. This will result in a

publication which will be generally available to the housing profession and will cover many aspects of anti-social behaviour. It will deal with precisely the issues highlighted tonight by the hon. Gentleman. At the more severe end of disruptive behaviour, we issued advice in 1994 on crime prevention and how it relates to housing and planning issues.
As I close, I should like to say how glad I am that the hon. Member chose this significant subject tonight. Everyone wants to enjoy his or her home, and most people act as responsible citizens, sensitive to the needs of others. There is a minority, however, who are disruptive and cause misery to their neighbours. Everyone has the right to the quiet enjoyment of their home, and the evidence from authorities around the country is that much can he done to deal with disruptive behaviour. Early action will nip problems in the bud, and prevent minor problems and misunderstandings from becoming something more serious.
Disruptive behaviour often spans a number of areas of interest, and consequently those involved—housing departments, their legal advisers, environmental health and social work departments of local authorities, health boards, and the police, as appropriate—need to work closely together. There are various powers available to landlords, as I have described.
I hope that I have demonstrated tonight that the remedies available are diverse, and that much can be achieved when they are used properly. I await with interest responses to the consultation paper on probationary tenancies. I am sure that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee will find its inquiry into housing and anti-social behaviour extremely interesting. I hope that it is able to take our knowledge forward, to help all those who have to deal with disruptive behaviour on a day-to-day basis.
In the last minute and a half, may I say that we have done a substantial amount to tackle the problem, by issuing advice in 1994 on crime prevention, and by taking initiatives in housing and planning matters, on the powers available to deal with anti-social behaviour and the use of mediation as a means of resolving disputes. We are consulting on the effectiveness of neighbourhood noise controls and on probationary tenancies.
We have issued a good practice note. We have funded the Chartered Institute of Housing to prepare a report on housing and crime, and we are providing further funding this year for work on housing and anti-social behaviour. We have welcomed the announcement by the Select Committee that its next inquiry will be on this subject. All this represents a wealth of activity, covering a wide range of activity on disruptive behaviour.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I have been active in dealing with housing legislation in the past. It looks as though, when these issues are considered on further occasions, we will both be involved yet again.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.